UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


SCHOOL  OF  LAW 
LIBRARY 


A  TEEATISE 


ON 


ATTORNEYS  AT  LAW 


BY 

EDWARD  M.  THORNTON 


In  Two  Volumes 
VOLUME  I 


NORTHPORT,  LONG  ISLAND,  N.  Y. 

EDWARD  THOMPSON  COMPANY 

1914 


\ 


^  ■■  v^  <•  ■   ^J_ 


COPYRIGHT,  1914, 

BY 

EDWARD  THOMPSON  COMPANY 


^%-^ot^-l 

5-S-S7 


FOREWORD 


fO 


J 


THIS  is  a  posthumous  work.     Tlic  author,  Mr.  Edward  ]\I. 
Thornton,  died  while  writing-  the  last  chapter.     The  subject 
was  one  which  attracted  him,  and  if  he  had  lived  to  see 
the  work  through  the  press,  his  prefatory  comments  on  the  under- 
taking and  the  law  as  developed  by  the  decisions  would  have  proved 
a  substantial  addition  to  the  book. 

Mr,  Thornton's  style  as  shown  by  these  pages  is  clear  and  con- 
densed. His  mind  quickly  grasped  the  points  determined  by  the 
authorities.  Analytical  and  logical  arrangement  came  to  him 
naturally.  He  was  possessed  of  great  industry,  and  was  determined 
to  devote  himself  to  the  books  of  his  profession.  Had  he  lived 
the  literature  of  the  law  would  have  been  enriched  by  other 
valuable  contributions  from  the  pen  of  this  sound  lawyer. 

The  final  chapter  dealing  with  suspension  and  disbarment  was 
revised  and  completed  by  Mr,  Hiram  Thomas  of  the  New 
York  bar.  Mr.  Thomas  brought  to  this  task  a  special  fitness 
acquired  by  a  long  association  with  the  work  of  the  committee 
on  discipline  of  the  Xew  York  County  Lawyers  Association.  The 
publishers  are  indebted  to  Mr.  Walter  A.  Shoemaker  for  making 
a  collection  of  the  very  recent  cases  and  attending  to  the  appro- 
priate distribution  of  them  throughout  the  author's  manuscript. 
The  index  was  prepared  by  Mr.  H.  Xoyes  Greene. 

The  Publishers. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 


VOLUME  I. 
CHAPTEE  I. 

INTRODUCTION". 

Historical. 

1.  The  Advocates  of  Ancient  Greece   1 

2.  The  Roman   Cognitors,   Procurators,  and  Advocates    2 

3.  The    Jurisconsults     3 

4.  In    England    4 

5.  Barristers  and   Solicitors    5 

6.  In  the  American  Colonies   6 

7.  The  Honorarium    8 

8.  Bill  of  Privilege    9 

Definition's  and  Distinctions. 

9.  Signification   of  Word   "Attorney"    31 

10.  "Attorney    at    Law"    Defined     31 

11.  "Practicing    Attorney"    Defined    12 

12.  Compared   with    Otlier   Vocations    14 

13.  Attorney    as   Officer   of    Court    14 

14.  As    Public    Officer    16 

15.  As  Constitutional  and  Judicial  Officer    17 

16.  "Attorneys  at  Law"  and  "Counselors"  Distinguished   17 

17.  "Lawj-er"    Defined     ]  S 

IS.  "Client"   Defined    18 

19.  "Attorney  in   Fact"  Defined    10 

20.  "Attorney  of  Record"  Defined    1  ;> 

V 


Vi  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

CHAPTER  11. 

ADMISSION  TO  PRACTICE. 

Necessity  of  Adinission. 

§  21.  Generally    22 

22.  Admission  for  Particular  Business  or  Case  24 

23.  Compensation  as  Depending  on  Admission   25 

24.  Party  Prosecuting  or  Defending  for  Himself   27 

25.  Representation   by   Agent    28 

26.  Statutory   Provisions   Forbidding  Unlicensed  Practice    30 

27.  Practice  in  Courts  Not  of  Record  30 

Jurisdiction  and  Regulation. 

28.  Whether  Judicial  or  Legislative  Function 31 

20.  Statutory  Regulation    33 

El'igihility   Generally. 

30.  Age    35 

31.  Citizenship     36 

32.  Residence      38 

33.  Race    40 

34.  Moral   Character    41 

35.  Eligibility    of    Corporations    44 

Eliyihility   of   Women. 

3ti.  Present    Status     45 

37.  At   Common    Law    40 

38.  Right  to  Admi.sHJon  under  Federal  Constitution  and  Statutes   ....  50 
3!>.  I>4gal  .\rguineiita  for  and  against  Admission    50 

40.  Nonic'gal  Arguments  for  and  against  Admission    52 

Ediication. 

n.  ('»ni-Tn\    Kdiication    56 

42.  i'lirfioHr   of   Statutory    Kcfiuircmeiits    58 

43.  Iiidianu    Constitutional    Provision     5i) 

4 1.  StUfly   in    I.uw   School    5!) 

45.  Stiidv   in    Law  Ollice    GO 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  Vll 
[Rcferenct^  are  to  payos.] 

ExamiiMtion. 

46.  Necessity  of  Examination   64 

47.  Who   Conducts    Examinations    (id 

48.  Examining    Boards    69 

49.  Examination  of  Law   School   Graduates    70 

50.  Character   of   Examination    73 

51.  Percentage  Eequired  to  Pass   77 

52.  Personal  Presence  of  Applicant   77 

Requirements   Subsequent    to   Examination. 

53.  Application  for  Admission    77 

54.  Oath   of   Oflice    79 

55.  Duelling   Oath    82 

56.  Test   Oaths    83 

57.  Enrollment  or   Registration    S3 

58.  Order   Admitting  Applicant — Conclusiveness  Thereof — Review    ...  84 

Admission  of  Attorneys  of  Other  Jurisdictions. 

59.  Admission  of  Attorneys  from  Other  States   85- 

GO.  Admission  of  Attorneys  from  Foreign  Countries 8& 

Objections. 

61.  Objections  to  Admission    90 

62.  Sufficiency  of  Evidence  against  Applicant 92 


CHAPTER  III. 

TAXATION  OF  ATTORNEYS— UNAUTHORIZED  PRACTICE. 

Taxation   of  Attorneys. 

§  63.  Power   to  Impose  Tax    96 

64.  Validity  of  Statutes  Imposing  Tax 97 

65.  Municipal    Taxation    101 

66.  Taxation  of  Nonresidents    102 

67.  Collection  of  Taxes   103 

68.  Failure  to  Pay  Tax  as  Affecting  Compensation   104 


Vlll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Unauthorized  Practice. 

§  69.  Practicing  without  License   104 

70.  Status  of  Proceedings  by  Unlicensed  Person   ]0t) 

71    Certain  Officers  Prohibited  from  Practicing  as  Attorneys  at  Law     111 

CHAPTEK  IV. 

PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES— LIBEL    AND    SLANDER. 

Privileges  and  Exemptions  in  General, 

§  72.  Generally     113 

73.  Privilege  from  Arrest    115 

74.  Privilege  from  Service  of  Process   116 

As  to  Language  Used  bg  Attorncg  in  Judicial  Proceedings. 

75.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Pertinent    118 

76.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Not  Pertinent   121 

77.  Communications  between  Attorney  and  Client 123 

78.  Rule  in  England  and  in  Canada  123 

Disabilities. 

79.  Generally   124 

80.  Attorneys  Becoming  Surety    124 

81.  Validity   and  Effect  of  Bond   Given  by  Attorney   in  Violation   of 

Statute  or  Rule  of  Court  128 

82.  Attorney  Acting  as  Notary  Public  in  Client's  Affairs 130 

Libel  and  Slander. 

83.  Generally 133 

84.  Actioiuiblc    Language    135 

85.  Nonactiunable  Language    140 

CTTAPTEK  V. 

ASSIGNMENT  OF   COrXSi:i,    I'.V   '1  HE   COURT— AMICUS   CURIvE. 

Assignnii  )it  of  Coiinsc!  by  the  Court. 
§  80.  ABsigniiicnt  of  ('oiiiiscl   fur  I'oor  Persons  in  Civil  Cases 143 


TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS.  IX 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  87.  In  Criminal  Cases    144 

88.  Appointment  of  Counsel  for  Absentees    147 

Aniicus  Ciirke. 

89.  Generally     ", 147 

90.  Status  of  Amici  Curiae   348 

91.  Power   and   Functions ]  50 


CHAPTER  VI. 

PRIVILEGED  COMMUNICATIONS. 
In  General. 

92.  General   Rule    154 

93.  Effect  of  Statutory  Provisions   156 

94.  Origin  and  Reason  of  Rule  158 

95.  Construction  of  Rule    161 

90.  Determining  Whether  Privilege  Exists    3  63 

97.  Enjoining  Secrecy   165 

Application  of  Rule. 

98.  Generally   ]  05 

99.  Knowledge  Not  Derived  from  Client   170 

100.  To  Whom  Communication  Must  Be  Made   172 

101.  Relation  of  Attorney  and  Client  Must  Exist 175 

102.  Communications    between    Attorney    and    Client's    Agent,    or    be- 

tween Associate  Counsel   177 

103.  Attorney  Acting  as  Scrivener  or  Notary  Public   179 

104.  Communications  to  Prosecuting  Attorneys   181 

105.  Communications  to  Attorney  Representing  Two  or  More  Persons  183 

106.  Communications  to  Opponent's  Attorney    186 

107.  Employment  in  Professional  Capacity   187 

108.  Judicial  Proceedings  Unnecessary   ]90 

109.  Payment   of   Retaining   Fee    191 

110.  Subject-Matter  of   Communication    102 

111.  Confidential   Character  of  Communication    ]94 

112.  Time  of   Making   Communication    3  95 

313.  Documents   and   Other   Writings    3  98 

3  34.  Execution,    Delivery,    Appearance,    Existence,    and    Possession    of 

Written    Instruments     201 

335.  Correspondence     203 


TABLE    OF    COXTEKTS. 
[References  arc  to  pages.] 

Limitation    of    Rule. 

116.  Generally    204 

117.  Communications  in  Presence  of,  or  Overheard  by,  Third  Persons  205 

118.  Communications  to  Be  Made  Public,  or  Conveyed  to  Others   ....  208 

119.  Communications  in  Connection  with  Preparation  of  Wills   209 

120.  Communications  in  Relation  to  Contemplated  Violation  of  Law  .  .  212 

121.  Communications  in  Furtherance  of  Fraudulent  Purpose 214 

122.  Handling  of  Client's  Funds  or  Property    215 

123.  Employment  and   Compensation   of   Attorney    21(i 

124.  Address,  Identity,  and  Handwriting  of  Client   217 

125.  Where  Attorney  is  a  Party  to  Transaction 219 

12C.  Attorney   as   Subscribing   Witness    220 

127.  Disclosure  for  Protection  of  Attorney   220 

Waiver, 

128.  Who  May  Waive  the  Privilege  221 

129.  Manner  of  Waiving  Privilege  Generally    223 

130.  Waiver  by  Giving  Testimony    224 

131.  Waiver  by  Becoming  State's  Witness  22ti 

132.  Effect  of   Waiver  at   Former   Trial    227 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RELATION  OF  ATTORNEY  AND  CLIENT— SlIBSTITUTION  OF  ATTOR- 
NEYS—IMPUTED NOTICE  AND  KNOWLEDGE. 

Creation  of  Relation. 

fj   133.  Retainer     228 

134.  Necessity   of   Retainer    23a 

13i5.  SufTiciency  of  Retainer   231 

I3(i.   Wiio    -May    Kinploy    Attorney    234 

Termination   of   Relation. 

137.   Giiicrally      23(i 

13H.   Hy  Act  of  Client   237 

139.  I'.y    Act  of   .Attorney    241 

140.  Hy    Dentil    of  (  li<nt    244 

in.    I!y   Death   of  Attorney    248 

142.    By    A(c()iii]dihljni(iit   i)f    I'uijici.se    248 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XI 
[References  arc  to  pages.] 

i^ubstitution. 

143.  Right  to   Substitution    253 

144.  Substitution   for   Cause    256 

145.  Substitution  after  Judgment    257 

146.  Manner  of  Effecting  Substitution   258 

147.  Terms      260 

148.  Determining  Amount  Due  or   Existence  of  Lien    26;i 

149.  Notice  of  Substitution    264 

150.  Effect    of    Substitution    266 

Imputed   Notice   and   Knoivledge. 

151.  General   Rule 266 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEALINGS     BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND     CLIENT— ACQUIRING  AD- 
VERSE INTERESTS— REPRESENTING  CONFLICTING  INTERESTS. 

Dealings  heticeen  Attorney  and  Client. 

§  152.  General   Rule    272 

153.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship    275 

154.  Dealings  Not  Necessarily  Void   277 

155.  Necessity  of  Advising  and  Informing  Client 278 

156.  Fraud      279 

157.  Assignments  and  Conveyances  Generally  281 

158.  Assignment  or  Conveyance  of  Subject-Matter  of  Litigation 286 

159.  Conveyances   to   Defraud   Creditors    287 

160.  Gifts    288 

161 .  Wills     289 

162.  Contracts  to  Indemnify  Client   291 

163.  Laches 292 

Acquiring  Adverse  Interest  in  Snhject-Matter  of  Employment. 

164.  General   Rule    29?. 

165.  To   Whom   Rule  Applies    295 

166.  Purchase  at  Judicial,  or  Other  Public  Sale 295. 

167.  Outstanding  Titles    299 

168.  Outstanding   Claims    301 

169.  Purchase  Held  to  Be  in  Trust  for  Client 302: 


XU.  TiVBLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[Rfferences  are  to  pages.] 

§  170.  Rights  of  Third  Persons 304 

171.  Effect  of  Client's  Consent   305 

172.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship   305 

■      173.  Laches    300 

Representing  Conflicting  Interests. 

174.  General   Rule    307 

175.  Extent  and  Application  of  Rule   309 

176.  Test  as  to  Whether  Interests  Are  Conflicting 314 

177.  Effect  of  Former  Retainer    315 

178.  Agreement  Permitting  Adverse  Employment   310 

179.  Effect  of  Accepting  Adverse  Employment   317 

180.  Restraining  Attorney  from  Acting  Adversely  to  Client 318 

181.  Civil  and   Criminal   Proceedings  Growing  Out   of   Same  Subject- 

Matter     319 

182.  Waiver  of  Objection   320 


CHAPTER  IX. 

LAW  PARTNERSHIPS— ATTORNEYS  AS  WITNESSES— ADMISSIONS  BY 
ATTORNEYS  AS  EVIDENCE. 

Law  Partners]) ips. 

§  183.  Generally   321 

184.  Retainer  of  Law  Firms    324 

185.  Dissolution    320 

Attorrieijs  as  Witnesses. 

180.  General    itule    327 

187.   Rule  in   Delaware    329 

IKS.   Pvule  in  Georgia    330 

1  Sit.  W  hen  (  aibd  l)y  Adverse  Party    331 

I'.ii).    Nicessity  of  Wiflidrawiiig  from  Cause 331 

191.  I'roof  of   l"(Mcigti    Laws  by    Attorney    333 

192.  Kvid.'nce  (if  \alidity  of  Title    340 

Atloiif^siiiHs  1)1/  .\  t tnruci/s  as  hhidenrc. 

<■    103.  General    l.'ub-    340 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  xill 

[Rofercncos  are  to  pages.} 

194.  Within  Scope  of  Attorney's  Authority   342 

195.  Formality    and    Distinctness     34.3 

196.  During-  Employment    346 

197.  Admissions   by   Attornej^'s   Clerks    347 

198.  Competency  of  Admission  on  Subsequent  Trial 347 


CHAPTER  X. 

SCOPE  OF  ATTORNEY'S  AUTHORITY— DELEGATION  OF  AUTHORITY— 
RATIFICATION  OF  UNAUTHORIZED  ACTS. 

In  General. 

§  199.  General   Rule    351 

200.  Assent  to  Assignment  for  Creditors,  and  Resistance  to  Discharge 

of    Bankrupt    354 

201.  Executing  Bond  for  Client   355 

202.  Making  or  Altering  Contracts   356 


Disposition  of  Glioses  and  Other  Property — GoUection  and  Receipt  of  Money. 

203.  Disposition  of  Client's  Choses  or  Other  Property 359 

204.  Receipt  of  Money  for  Client  Generally 361 

205.  On  Claims  Held  for  Collection   363 

206.  Right  to  Demand  Payment   3C7 

207.  Extending  Time  of  Payment    367 

208.  Receipt  of  Money  Outside  Scope  of  Employment    368 

209.  Authority  to  Resort  to  Criminal  Proceedings  370 


Delegation  of  Authority. 

21 0.  Generally     370 

Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Acts. 

211.  Generally      374 

212.  Ratification  by  Adopting  or  Accepting  Benefits  of  Attorney's  Acts  377 

213.  Ratification  by  Failing  to  Object    379 

214.  Laches  as  Ratification   380 


XIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

CHAPTER  XI. 

AUTHORITY  TO  COMPROMISE  OR  RELEASE. 
Compromise  Unauthorized  by  Client. 

§  215.  General    Rule    382 

216.  Application  of  Rule    386 

217.  In  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and  South  Carolina 388 

218.  In   Emergencies    390 

219.  Acceptance  of  Payment  Otherwise  Than  in  Money 390 

220.  Accepting  Less  Than  Amount  Due 395 

221.  Effect  of  Unauthorized  Compromise  399 

222.  When  Set  Aside 400 

223.  Rule  in  Canada   401 

224.  Rule  ia  England    402 

Compromise  Authorized  by  Client. 

225.  Operation  and  Extent  of  Authority   404 

22G.  Sufficiency  of  Authority  405 

Release. 

227.  Generally     408 

228.  Release  of  Attached  Property  412 

CHAPTER  XII. 

AUTHORITY  TO  APPEAR  FOR  LITIGANTS. 
In  General. 

§  229.  Authority   to   Appear    413 

230.  Authority  Presumed    415 

231.  .Apjicarancc  for  Co-Parties  and  Nominal   Parties 420 

232.  Necessity  of   Written   Authority  to  Appear    42! 

233.  MiinnrT  of  Entering  Appearance    422 

Objeclion   to   Appearances. 

234.  Right  to  Ohjcct    423 

235.  Who  .May  Object   424 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XV 

[Uoforciiei's  are  to  pages.] 

§  236.  Manner  of  Presenting-  Objections   42.5 

237.  Sufficiency  of  Objections    42S 

238.  Time  to  Object   430 

239.  Evidence     432 

240.  Requiring  Proof  of  Authority    435 

241.  Consequences   of    Unauthorized   Appearance 437 

242.  Waiver  of  Oljjcction   438 

Effect  of  i'naiithorized  A ppearavcc  after  Judgment. 

243.  Generally      430 

244.  Domestic    Judgment    442 

245.  Foreign    Judgment    445 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

AUTIIOPvITY  IN  CONDUCTING  LITIGATION. 
In  General. 

24G.  Scope  of  Authority   449 

247.  Bringing  and  Defending  Suits,  and  Matters  Incidental  Thereto..  451 

248.  Control  of  Proceedings  in  Court 455 

249.  Excluding  Control  by  Client   457 

250.  Dismissal,  Discontinuance,  and  Retraxit   458 

251.  Authority  to  Make  Affidavit  for  Client 460 

252.  Authority  to  Incur  Expense   461 

Acceptance  of  Service  of  Process  and  Papers. 

253.  Original   Process    465 

254.  Subsequent  Notices  and  Other  Papers    468 

255.  Manner   of   Service    470 

250.  Notice  and   Demand    475 

257.  Professional   Relationship  ]Must  Exist 476 

Admissions  and  Stipulations. 

258.  Admissions    476 

259.  Stipulations  Generally    478 

260.  In  Matters  of  Procedure   481 

2G1.  As  to  Matters  of  Evidence 482 

262.  That  One  Suit  Shall  Abide  Decision  of  Another 483 

2(Ju.  Waiver  of  Client's  Rights    484 


XVI  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Ji  264.  Manner   of   Stipulating    48.> 

263.  Admissions  and  Stipulations  Made  under  Mistake  of  Fact 480 

Trial,  Arbitration  and  Reference. 

266.  Conduct  of  Trial   480 

267.  Arbitration   and   Reference    488 

Judgments  and  Decrees. 

268.  Confession   of  Judgiuent    492 

269.  Consenting  to  Entry  of  Judgment    494 

270.  Consenting  to  Entry  of  Decree 495 

271.  Assignment  of  Judgment  497 

272.  Vacating   Judgment    498 

273.  Remittitur     498 

274.  Compromise  and  Release   499 

275.  Receiving  Payment  and  Entering  Satisfaction 500 

Enforcement  of  Judgments  and  Decrees. 

276.  Issuing  Execution  and  Receiving  Payment  Thereon 502 

277.  Other  Measures  for  Enforcement    504 

278.  Instructions  as  to  Enforcement  50.) 

279.  Agreements  in   Connection  with   Enforcement 507 

280.  Staying    Execution    508 

Proceedings  for  Review. 

281.  Autliority  to  Prosecute  Appeal  and  Error 509 

282.  Control   of   Proceedings    511 

283.  VVaivins:  Right  of  Review   512 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

TJAMILITY  CENEKALLY, 

For  Jireacli  of  Diitjj. 

284.  In    nenernl     514 

285.  I{y    i'Vaudiilcnt    Conduct    514 

280.   In  neffrence  to  PiipcrH  of  Client 515 

2S7.    nelease    of    l.iiihility    510 


TABLE    OF    CO^'TE^^TS.  XVll 
[Rffereiict'S  aro  to  paj^os.] 
For  Unaiitliorizcd  Acts. 

§  288.  Generally    516 

289.  As  Ut'peiulcnt  on  Instructions f)!? 

290.  Unauthorized   Appearance    517 

291.  Unauthorized   Compromise  or   Release    518 

For  Acts  of  Partners,  tSiihstiiutcs,  Clerks,  and  Assistants. 

292.  Acts  of  Partners    51f> 

293.  Acts  of  Substitutes   521 

294.  Acts  of  Clerks  and  Assistants   522 

Liability  of  Attorney  to  Third  Perso7is. 

295.  For  Fraudulent  or   Tortious  Acts    523 

29G.  For  False  Arrest  or  Imprisonment   525 

297.  For  Unlawful  Execution  and  Seizure  of  Property   52r> 

298.  For  Overpayments   527 

299.  For  Moneys  Received  on  Account  of  Third  Person 52S 

300.  For    Negligence    529 

301.  As   Garnisliee    529 

302.  Effect  of  Acting  in  Good  Faitli   530 

Liahility  of  Client  to  Third  Persons. 

303.  For  Acts  of  Attorney   531 

304.  For  Statements  in  Pleadings   533 

For  Costs  and  Expenses. 

305.  Liability  for  Costs  Generally   536 

306.  Because  of  Misconduct  or  Negligence    536 

307.  Because  of  Representing  Nonresident  Litigants 539 

308.  Because  of   Indorsement   of   Writ    541 

309.  Because  of  Beneficial  Interest 542 

310.  Fees  and  Expenses    543 

311 .  Enforcement  of  Liabilitv   545 


XVIU  TABLE    or    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

CHAPTER  XV. 

LIABILITY  FOR  NEGLIGENCE. 
In  General. 

§  312.  As  Dependent  on  Attorney's  Skill,  Care,  and  Prudence 547 

313.  Attorney  Not  Guarantor  or  Insurer   551 

314.  Ignorance  of  Law    553 

315.  As  to  Giving  Advice 556 

316.  Investments  and  Securities  558 

317.  In  Preparing  and  Recording  Written  Instruments   560 

318.  Attorney's  Negligence  Imputed  to  Client 561 

In  Condiuting  Litigation. 

319.  In   General    563 

320.  Preparation  and  Filing  of  Pleadings   564 

321.  Trial    565 

322.  With  Respect  to  Judgments    566 

323.  As  to  Proceedings  for  the  Enforcement  of  Judgments 568 

324.  As  to  Attacliments   568 

325.  Proceedings  for  Review    560 

In  Collecting  Claims. 

320.  Failure  to  Exercise  Due  Can-,  Skill,  and  Diligence 560 

327.  Failure  Properly  to  Care  for  Fund   572 

328.  Failure  to  Pay  Over  Proceeds  574 

329.  Failing  to  Follow  Instructions   577 

330.  Ellcct  of  Authorizing  Attorney  to  Exercise  Discretion 578 


CHAl'TEU  XVI. 

E\l'()i;(  KMIvXr   Ol'    IJ.MJIIJTY. 

A'li'iHs  jor  I  iiinillnn  i:i  (I  <intl  I'laiidiilcnt  Acts. 

^  331.   For    riunitlinrized    Acts    5S0 

332.    For   l-iitud    581 


TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS.  XIX 
[References  are  to  pages.] 

Actions  for  Xcgligciicc  (Icneralli/. 

333.  Form  of  Action    582 

334.  Pleading 583 

335.  Proof    584 

336.  Defenses   Generally    58(5 

337.  Statute  of  Limitations   588 

338.  Damages     589 

339.  Survival  of  Action    591 

Actions  for  Xegligence  in  Collection  of  Claims. 

340.  Pleading  and  Proof   591 

341.  Defenses  Generally    593 

342.  Statute  of  Limitations   594 

343.  Damages     594 

Actions  for  Money  Collected. 

544.  Right  to  an   Accounting    595 

345.  Right  to   Sue    590 

346.  Necessity  of  Making  Demand  Prior  to  liringini;  Suit 598 

347.  Form  of  Action    599 

348.  Pleading     600 

349.  Proof    601 

350.  Defenses   Generally    602 

351.  Statute  of  Limitations    004 

352.  Set-Off  and   Counterclaim    607 

353.  Recovery    607 

Summari/  Proceedings. 

354.  Right  to  Proceed  Summarily  for  Recovery  of  ^loney 008 

355.  Right  to  Proceed  Summarily  for  Otlu'r  Purposes   610 

350.  When  Right  Will  Be  Exercised    61 1 

357.  Professional  Relation  Must  Exist 613 

358.  Institution   of   Proceeding    615 

359.  Parties    61 7 

300.  Evidence     017 

361.  Hearing    018 

302.  Defenses      010 

363.  :Merit  and  Good  Faith  Must  Be  Shown  in  Defense   621 

304.  1  he  Order  and  Its  Enforcement 622 


XX  TABLE    OF    CONTEXTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 


VOLUME   II. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

ADVICE  OF  COUNSEL. 

In  General. 

%  365.  Scope  of  Chapter  625 

366.  In  Civil  Actions  Generally   626 

367.  In  Proceedings  Charging  Violation  of  Law 627 

368.  In  Proceedings  for  Contempt '. 029 

In  Actions  for  Malicious  Prosecution. 

369.  General   Rule    631 

370.  Reason  of  Rule    635 

371.  Whetlier  Advice  of  Counsel  Shows  Absence  of  Malice,  or  Existence 

of  Probable  Cause    636 

372.  Bona  Fides  in  Seeking  and  Acting  upon  Advice   638 

373.  Requisite  Statement  of  Facts   639 

374.  Necessity  of  Exercising  Diligence  to  Discover  Facts 642 

375.  Requisites  as  to  Advice  Received    045 

376.  Qualification  of  Attorney  Consulted   047 

377.  Advice  of   Prosecuting  Attorney    049 

378.  Advice  of  Persons  Other  Than  Attorneys 049 

CHAPTER  XVIIT. 

CHAMPERTY,    BARRATRY,   AND    ]\IA1X  TEXANCE. 

Definitions  and  l>isl iuction.'^. 

fi  379.  Champerty  Dofiiicil    653 

3K0.   Harratry  Defined    054 

3HK  Maiiitcnaiuc  Dcliiii'il    655' 

382.  'J'erms   Distinguisiicd    650 

(hi(/in,  l'inj)ns(\  and  Adcjjt ion  of  iUxjlisli   I, airs. 

383.  Origin   057 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXI 

[References  arc  to  pages.] 

§  384.  rurpose     659 

385.  Adoption  of  Knglisli  Laws  in  I'nited  States G61 

As  Ajjcctiny  Contracts  for  Compensation. 

386.  Contingent    Fees     664 

387.  In  Suits  to  Recover  Land    <JG(> 

388.  Contracting  for  Part  of  Recovery  Distinguislied  from  Creating  In- 

debtedness for  Fees    667 

389.  Agreement  to  Pay  Costs  or  Expenses  669 

390.  Contracts  Forbidding  Settlement  by  Client 672 

391.  Contracts  Entered   into  after  Final  Judgment   673 

392.  Presentation  of  Claims  against  Government 673 

393.  Aiding   Poor   Persons    674 

394.  Recovery    on    Quantum    Meruit    for    Services    Rendered    under 

Champertous   Contract    675 

Purchase  of  Litigious  nights. 

395.  Generally     676 

396.  Under    Statutes    678 

397.  In  New  York    680 

Champertous  Agreement  as  Defense  to  Action. 

398.  General  Rule 684 

399.  Rule  in  Wisconsin   686 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

EIGHT  TO  COMPENSATION. 

In  General. 

%  400.  Under  the  Civil  Law    688 

401.  Rule  in  England    691 

402.  Criticism  of  English  Rule  695 

403.  Rule  in  Canada   699 

404.  General  Rule  in  I'nited  States   ; 700 

405.  Rule  in  New  Jersey    703 

406.  Retaining  Fees   705 

For  Scrrices  of  Associate  Counsel. 

407.  Unauthorized    Employnu-nt   708 

408.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Employment    711 

409.  Authorized   Employment    712 


XXll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.! 

For  Services  Rendered  in  A  id  of  Indigent  Persons. 

§  410.  Common  Law  Rule  in  Criminal  Cases  712 

411.  Statutes  Providing  for  Compensation  in  Criminal  Cases 715 

412.  In  Civil  Actions   717 

For  Services  Rendered  to  Persons  under  Disability,  or  Acting  in  RepresentO' 

tive  Capacity. 

413.  Infants     .• 717 

414.  Married    Women    719 

415.  Insane  Persons  719 

416.  Persons  Acting  in  Representative  Capacity  720 

CHAPTER  XX. 

CONTRACTS  FOR  COMPENSATION. 
In  General. 

§  417.  Right  to  Contract  for  Compensation  723 

418.  Client's  Capacity  to  Contract    725 

419.  Construction  of  Contract  725 

420.  Assignment  of   Contract    727 

Contracts  for  Contingent  Fees. 

421.  Validity  of  Contracts  for  Contingent  Fees  Generally 727 

422.  Contract  for  Part  of  Land  in  Litigation   731 

423.  Happening  of   Contingency 732 

424.  Manner  of  Effecting  Contingency   733 

425.  Creation  of  Equitahle  Assignment   734 

426.  (,'reation  of  Interest  in  Subject-Matter  of  l^itigation 730 

427.  Excessive  Fees   737 

Miillirs  Aff(cling    ]'<illil!ti/   of  Contracts   (Icncrally. 

428.  Fairness    740 

429.  Advice  and    Disclosure  (if    I'ud   hy   Attdrney 743 

430.  Contract  -Must   ]{(•   Cnderstood   hy   Client    744 

431.  I  "iicdnHcjonaldc   ( 'ontiacts    745 

43:i.   Time  of   Making  (. infract   as   AfVc.l  ing   Us  Niiliditv    746 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXlll 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Contracts  in  Vontrarention  of  Public  Policy. 

§  433.  In  General    749 

434.  As  Dependent  on  Nature  of  Services  Rendered 0)2 

435.  Contracts  Restricting  Settlement  by  (  lient 754 

436.  Solicitation    of    Business    757 

437.  Contracts  Affecting  Marital  Relations    75S 

Recovery  on  Quantum  Meruit  for  Services  Performed  under  Void  or  Voidable 

Vuntracts. 

438.  Generally      759- 


CHAPTER  XXL 

AMOUNT,   RETENTION,  AND  ALLOWANCE   OF  COMPENSATION,  TAX- 
ABLE COSTS,  AND  expp:nses. 

Under  Express  Contract. 

§  439.  Contract  Controls    764 

440.  Extra  Compensation  Denied   767 

441.  Extra  Compensation  Allowed    768- 

442.  Amount  Not  Definitely  Fixed   769' 

443.  Counsel  Substituted  by  Original  Attorney 771 

444.  Associate  or  Additional  Counsel    772 

445.  Covenant  in  Mortgage  Fixing  Attorney  Fee  for  Foreclosure  ....  772 

446.  Stipulation  in  Note  Fixing  Attorney  Fee  for  Collection  Thereof..  776 

Under  Implied  Contract. 

447.  Reasonable  Compensation  Allowed    779 

448.  What  Are  Reasonable  Fees   783 

449.  Matters  Considered  in  Determining  Reasonable  Value  of  Services  786 

On  Premature  Termination  of  Employment  Generally. 

450.  Performance  Prevented  by  Client    792 

451.  Performance   Prevented  by   Substitution 796 

452.  Impossibility  of  Performance    797 

453.  Abandonment  by  Attorney    798 

454.  Death   of   Attorney    801 

455.  Death  of  Client    802 


XXIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

On  Settlement  by  Client. 

§  456.  General    Rule    804 

457.  Rule  Where  Compensation  Is  Dependent  on  Success 800 

458.  Fraudulent  Settlements    810 

459.  Settlement  Provided  for  in  Contract    811 

460.  Liability  of  Adverse  Party   812 

On  Appointment  to  Serve  Poor  Persons. 

401.  In  General  813 

Under  Banl'riiptci/  Act. 

462.  Allowance  of  Attorney  Fees   817 

463.  Fees  of  Bankrupt's  Attorney    817 

464.  Fees  of  Attorneys  for  Trustee  and  Receiver 819 

465.  Fees  of  Attorneys  for  Creditors   820 

466.  Fees  Must  Be  Reasonable  in  All  Cases    223 

467.  Priority   Rights    '. 824 

408.  Re-examination  of  Fees  Paid  in  Contemplation  of  Bankruptcy.  .  . .  825 

Apportionment  of  Fees. 

469.  Generally     827 

470.  Under  Agreement  for  Division  of  Fees   829 

Compensation  of  Laic   I'artnersliips. 

471.  Generally   830 

472.  Fffect  of   Dissolution    832 

473.  On  Winding  I'p  Business 834 

474.  Services  Performed  in  Individual  Capacity   835 

475.  Accounting    837 

I'ctrntion  of  Fees  from  Funds  in  Hand. 

476.  G.-iicrally      837 

Alloirancr  of  Coinisel  F<-es  in  l\!i/inliililr  l'r<icetdin(js. 

All .   AlUiwance  from    l-'unds   Recovered    S41 

478.   WIh'ii  Alh.waiicc  Will   He  Denied   844 

47!'.    Ill   J'artition    I'ldcccdiii'^s    847 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXV 
[References  are  to  pages.] 

Allorrance  of  Counsel  Fees  in  Legal  Proceedings. 

§  480.  Generally     850 

481.  Proceedings  for  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Assessments   856 

482.  In  Actions  on  Injunction  Bonds   856 

483.  In  Actions  on  Attacliment  Bonds   858 

Taxable  Costs,  Statutory  Fees,  and  Expenses. 

484.  To  Whom  Taxable  Costs  and  Statutory  Fees  Belong 859 

485.  Taxable    Costs    and    Statutory    Fees    as    Measure    of    Attorney's 

Compensation     862 

486.  Reimbursement  of  Expenses   864 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

ACTIONS  TO   RECOVER   COMPENSATION. 
Right  of  Action. 

%  487.  Generally     868 

488.  When  Right  of  Action  Accrues    870 

489.  As  AlYected  by  Nature  of  Services 871 

Form  of  Action — Parties. 

490.  Action  at  Law   872 

491.  Suit  in  Equity   873 

492.  Summary   Proceedings    874 

493.  Parties   875 

Pleading. 

494.  Declaring   on   Express   Contract    876 

495.  Declaring  on  Quantum  Meruit    877 

496.  Alleging  Performance   878 

497.  Alleging    Indebtedness    879 

498.  Alleging  Plaintiff"'s  Qualification  to  Practice  Law 879 

499.  Defensive  Pleading    879 

Allegations  and  Proof. 

500.  Genorallv    881 


XXvi  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Evidence  General} y. 

§  501.  Burden  of  Proof    S82 

502.  Record  as  Evidence 884 

503.  Right  of  Plaintiff  to  Practice  as  Attorney  at  Law ScS5 

504.  Declarations  and  Admissions    885 

505.  Bill   Rendered  as  Evidence    880 

500.  Weight  of   Evidence    887 

Proof  of  Employment. 

507.  Necessity  of  Proving  Employment   888 

508.  Mode  of  Proof    890 

509.  What  Constitutes  Employment  Generally    891 

510.  Authority  to  Employ  Generally   892 

511.  Employment  by  Representative  Persons   893 

512.  P^mployment  by  Corporations  and  Stockholders  Thereof 895 

513.  Employment  by  One  of  Several  Parties  as  Creating  Joint  Liability  896 

514.  Employment  by  One  of  Several  Heirs  or  Legatees 897 

515.  Employment  by  Principal  or  Surety  as  Creating  Joint  Liability.  .  898 

516.  Employment  of  Associate  Counsel 899 

517.  Ratification  of  Unauthorized  Employment   900 

518.  .•\cceptance  of  Benefits  of  Attorney's  Services   902 

519.  Sufiiciency  of  Acceptance  of  Beneficial  Services   903 

520.  Employment  by  One  Spouse  as  Binding  the  Other  GeneralU^ 905 

521.  In  Actions  for  Divorce   900 

522.  In  Other  ^latrimonial  Actions   009 

I'roof  of  Performance. 

523.  Xecessity  of  Proving  Performance   010 

524.  Sufiiciency   of   I'roof    911 

525.  Performance  without  Litigation    913 

52fi.  Performance  by  Associated  Attorneys  and  Partners 914 

527.  Performance  by  Substitute   914 

528.  Purpose  Accomplished  without  Attorney's  Aid   915 

I'roof  of   \  (line  of  KerrUes. 

520.  Tn  General   9 1 1; 

530.  \'aluc  of    Kctaiiiing   Fee    i\\'; 

531.  fn  Actions  upon  E.xpress  Contracts   917 

5.32.   FJurden  of  J'roving  Fairness    918 

53.3.  In  Actions  on  Implied  Contracts  (Jciiciallv   920 


TABLE    OF    CONTKNTS.  XXVH 

[Rcforonces  are  to  pages.] 

534.  Attorney's  Ability,  Experience,  and  Standing   022 

535.  Nature  and  Extent  of  Services   923 

530.  Importance   of    Litigation 02.> 

537.  Amount  in  Controversy    926 

538.  Result     928 

539.  Benefit  to  Client    92S 

540.  Client's  Wealth  or  Poverty   929 

541.  Usual  and   Ciistomary  Compensation    930 

542.  Offer  from  Adverse  Party    933 

543.  Where  Services  Are  Rendered  in  Foreign  State   933 

544.  Fees  Fixed  by  Court    933 

Expert  Testimony. 

545.  Necessity  of  Expert  Testimony   934 

546.  Admissibility  of  Expert  Testimony   935 

547.  Qualification  of  Expert  Witness   937 

548.  Knowledge  of  Charges  in  Particular  Locality   939 

549.  Basis    of    Opinion    940 

550.  Weight   of   Expert   Evidence    941 

Defenses. 

551 .  Generally 942 

552.  Defense  Must  Be  Meritorious   944 

553.  Negligence  or  Ignorance    945 

554.  \vlien  Negligence  or  Ignorance  Unavailable  as  Defense   947 

555.  Fraud   or   Bad   Faith    948 

556.  When  Fraud  or  Bad  Faitii   Unavailable  as  Defense   950 

557.  Refusal  to  Pay  Over  !Money  Collected 951 

558.  Abandonment  of  Cause  by  Attorney   952 

559.  Gratuitous   Service    952 

560.  Payment     954 

561.  Payment  of  Fees  to  Other  C  ounsel   956 

562.  Solicitation   of   Business    957 

563.  Statute    of   Limitations    Generally    958 

504.  Where   Professional   Relationship   Has   Been  Prematurely   Termi- 
nated      959 

Suhmitting  Case  to  ■Jiinj — I'ecovenj — Review. 

50.").  Submitting  Case  to  Jury 960 

560.  Recovery  Generally    901 

507.  Recovery   of    Interest    9()2 

568.  Review 91)4 


XXVlll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Recovery  Back  from  Attoi~ncy — Penalties, 

§  569.  When  Fees  May  Be  Recovered  Back 965 

570.  Recovery  Back  Denied   906 

571.  Recovery  of  Penalties  for  Taking  Unlawful  Fees   967 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 

LIENS  GENERALLY. 
Right  to  Lien. 

§  572.  In  General    969 

The  Retaining  Lien. 

573.  Retaining  Lien  Defined  and  Distinguished   970 

574.  Origin 971 

575.  Nature   972 

576.  Necessity  of  Possession    973 

577.  Compelling  Surrender  of  Possession  without  Payment 973 

TJte  Charging  Lien, 


578.  Charging  Lien  Defined  and  Distinguished   975 

579.  Origin  of  Lien   976 

580.  Basis  of  Lien   978 

58L  Nature  of  Lien  978 

582.  Under   Statutes    979 

Lien  Created  bg  Contract, 

583.  Generally     980 

To  Whom  Lien  Accrues, 

584.  CJonerally      981 

585.  AttoriieyH   of    Record    982 

.'"iSe.  Associate  and  Assistant  Counsel   983 

Prior itj/  of  Lien. 

587.  In    rjr.noral    984 

588.  .\h  agaiiiHt  Unsecured   Cicditors    985 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXIX 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  589.  As  against  Creditors  Armed  with  Process    98(> 

590.  As  against  Secured   Creditors    980 

591.  Rule  in  Georgia   987 

Services  and  Compensation  for  Which  Lien  Exists. 

592.  Taxable    Costs    987 

59.3.  Compensation,  Disbursements,  and  Expenses   988 

594.  Compensation  Due  in  Particular  Suit  or  Proceeding   989 

595.  Incidental   Services    990' 

596.  Nature  of  Services  and  for  Whom  Rendered   991 

597.  As  to  Court  Wherein  Services  Are  Rendered   992^ 

598.  Services  Rendered  for  Defendant    992 

599.  Extent  of  Retaining  Lien   993 

Notice  of  Lien. 

600.  Necessity  of  Notice 995 

601.  Sufficiency  of  Notice  Generally    997 

602.  Notice  Presumed    998 

603.  Filing  or   Recording  of  Lien    999 

604.  Requirements  as  to  Writing  and  Stating  Amount  of  Claim 1000 

605.  To  Whom  Notice  Should  Be  Given    1001 

Waiver  or  Loss  of  Lien. 

600.  In   General    1001 

607.  Satisfaction   or   Release   of  Judgment   1003 

608.  Acceptance  of  Independent   Security    1004 

609.  Bringing  Suit  for  Compensation    1005 

610.  Abandonment  of   Cause    1005 

OIL  Assignment  by  Attorney    1005 

612.  Waiver  or  Loss  of  Retaining  Lien   1006 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

PvIGHTS  AND  PROPERTY  AFFECTED  BY  LIEN. 

Cause  of  Action. 

613.  Eight  to  Lien  on  Cause  of  Action   1009^ 

614.  Validity  of   Statutes  Creating  Lien    1010' 

615.  Extent  of  Lion    1012' 

616.  Cause  of  Action  for  Personal  Tort   1014 

617.  When  Lien  Accrues    1014) 


XXX  TABLE    OF    COXTEXTS. 

[References  ai'e  to  pages.] 

Moncjj  and  Funds. 

§  61S.  Funds  in  Hands  of  Adverse  Party lOlG 

619.  Funds  in  Hands  of,  or  Owing  to.  Executors,  Administrators,  or 

Trustees     ]  017 

620.  Legacies    and    Distributive   Shares    101!» 

621.  Attached  Funds    101!) 

622.  Appropriations  and  Otlier  Government  Funds   1020 

623.  Money  Paid  into  Court   1021 

624.  Fund  in  Equity    1022 

62.5.  Attorney's   Aid  and  Client's  Participation  Necessary    102;) 

626.  Lien  Follows  Fund   1023 

Real  and  Personal  Property. 

627.  Lien  on  Land  in  Absence  of  Statute   1024 

f)28.  Lien    Created   by   Contract    1025 

629.  Lien  on  Land  by  Virtue  of  Statute    1025 

630.  Necessity    of    Recovery    1026 

631.  Partition    Proceedings    1028 

632.  Homesteads     1028 

633.  Personal    Property     1029 

Judgments,  Decrees,  and  Awards. 

634.  Judgments  and  Decrees  Generally   1029 

63.).  As  Affected  by  Nature  of  Judgment   1032 

636.  Extent   of   Lien    1 033 

637.  Judgments  and  Decrees  for  Alimony   1034 

To  What  Retaining  Jjien  Attaches. 

638.  Property  in  Possession   103.") 

639.  Possession  Must  Be  Consistent  with   Lien   1037 


CIIArTER  XXV. 

SKT'l'LKMiiNT,   DTSMLSSAL.   SUBSTFrUTION,   ASSTGN:MENT,   AND  SET- 
OFF  AS    AFFECTING    LIEN    RIGHTS, 

Scltlemcnt. 

§   OU).   Srttlfnicnt   before   .ludgnient   (Jeneraily    1039 

641.  Settlement   Where    Lien    Riglits  Exist    1042 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXXl 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  642.  Fraiuhilent    Settlements     1044 

(543.  Settlement    I'eiiiling   Appeal    1040 

644.  Effect  of  Contract  for  Part  of  Subject-:\Iatter  of  Litij;atlon    ^046 

04.5.  Settlement  after  Jiulgiiient    1047 

Di^mitisal,  SiibNtitiitio)i,  and  Assignment. 

646.  Dismissal     1049 

647.  Substitution     lOol 

648.  Assignment  of  Judgment   1051 

649.  Assignment  of  Cause  of  Action   1052 

Set-Off. 

650.  Generally   1053 

651.  Set-Off  of  One  Judgment  against  Another   1054 

652.  Assignment  of  Judgment  to  Counsel  as  Affecting  Right  of  Set-Off  1056 


CHAPTEK  XXVI. 

ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIENS. 
In  General. 

§  653.  Right  to  Enforce  Lien   1 059 

654.  Courts  Wherein  Enforcement  May  Be  Had   1059 

655.  Law  Which  Governs   1061 

By  and  against  Whom  Enforcement  May  Be  Effected. 

650.  Who   May   Enforce   Lien    1061 

657.  Against  Whom  Enforcement  ^May  Be  Had    1062 

Vacation  of  Proceedings  to  Effect  i^cttlement. 

658.  Vacation  of  Settlement  Proceedings  Generally    1063 

659.  Seeking  Additional  Relief  in  Vacation  Proceedings   1064 

660.  When  Proceedings  Will  Be  Vacated    1065 

Summary  Determination  and  Enforcement  of  Lien-  in  Original  Action. 

661.  Generally    1066 

6(;2.  Petition  for  Determination  and  Enforcement   1067 


XXXll  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  663.  Against  Whom  Petition  May  Be  Presented    1068 

664.  Necessary  Parties    ]068 

665.  Determination  of  Amount  Due    1069 

660.  Order  and  Appeal  Therefrom   1070 

Other  Summary  Enforcement. 

667.  Generally   1070 

668.  Issuing  Execution    ]  07 1 

669.  Order  on  SherifT  or  Assignee  of  Judgment  to  Pay  Over  Fund  ....  1072 

670.  Intervention  in  Proceedings  for  Revival  of  Judgment 1073 

671.  Enforcement  by  Appeal  and  m  Appellate  Court 1073 

672.  Taking   Judgment    by    Default    1074 

Prosecuting  Original  Suit  to  Final  Judgment. 

673.  Right  to  Prosecute  Original  Suit   1074 

674.  Procedure     1 076 

675.  Permission  to  Prosecute  Denied    1078 

Enforcement  hy  Independent  Action. 

676.  By  Action  at  Law   1079 

677.  By  Suit  in  Equity 1081 

678.  Parties      1082 

679.  Pleading  and  Proof    1083 

680.  Defenses     1084 

681.  Recovery    and    Enforcement    Thereof    1085 

682.  Enforcement  against  Judgment   1080 

683.  Enforcement  against  Provisional  Remedies  and  Sureties 1080 

Enforcement  of  h'rtainiru!  Lien. 

684.  GeniTaily      1080 


CIIAPTKIi  XXVII. 

PROSECUTIXC;   ATTOHXEYS. 

In    (icncral. 

fifi.T.   Profcciif  ing  OfTiccrH   in    1  lii-liiml    1089 

686.   Proscciitintf   Olliccis    in    I   iiidd    Sfatcs    1089 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXXlll 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

687.  Prosecuting  Attorneys  as  Officers   lOOO 

688.  As  Quasi  Judicial  Officers    lO'Jl 

Election  or  Appointment,  Eligibility,   Tenure  and   Qualification. 

689.  Election  or  Appointment   ]091 

690.  Appointment  to   Fill   \'acancy    1092 

091.  Eligibility    1093 

692.  Qualiffcation    Generally    1094 

693.  Qualiffcation  as  to  Trial  of  Particular  Cause 1094 

694.  Tenure    109(i 

Deputies,    Substitutes    and   Assistants. 

695.  Deputies     1 097 

696.  Substitutes    1 09S 

697.  Right  to  Appoint  Assistants  for  Trial  Purposes 1 100 

698.  Who  May  Appoint  Assistants    1101 

699.  Who   May   Be  Assistants    1 102 

700.  Former  Employment  as  Disqualification   1104 

701.  Nonresidence  as  Disqualification    1105 

702.  Eligibility  of  Private   Counsel    1106 

703.  Number  of  Assistants  and  Time  of  Appointment 1110 

704.  Qualification  Generally  and  Tenure   1111 

Power,  Duty,  Liability  and  Compensation. 

705.  Duties  Generally    1113 

706.  Criminal   Prosecutions    1J14 

707.  Proceedings  before  Grand  Jury   1110 

708.  Civil    Actions    1117 

709.  Authority  Outside  of  District 1117 

710.  Authority  to  Incur  Expense   1118 

711.  Liability     111& 

Conduct  of  Trials. 

712.  Prosecutor   Must  Act   Impartially    1120 

713.  Right  of   Deputies,  Substitutes  and  Assistants  to  Conduct  Trial  1121 

714.  Right  of  Private  Counsel  to  Conduct  Trial 1122 

Com^pensation. 

715.  Generally 1123 

716.  Compensation  of  Deputies,  Substitutes  and  Assistants 1125 


XXXIV  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Remoral. 

§  717.  Generally     112G 

718.  Grounds  lor  Removal    1127 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

Gc7i€raUij. 

%  719.  Origin  of  Office 1131 

720.  In  England    1131 

721.  In  Canada  1133 

United  States  Attorneij-GeneraJ. 

722.  In  General  1133 

723.  Superintendence  of  District  Attorneys,  Marshals,  and  Clerks  ....  1135 

724.  As  Counsel  for  the  Government    113G 

72.).  Opinion   of   Attorney-General    113S 

72(J.  To  Whom  Opinion  Shall  Be  Given    1138 

727.  Statement  of  Question    1140 

728.  EHect   of  Opinion 1140 

729.  Substitutes  and  Assistants    1141 

730.  Special    Counsel     1141 

titate  A ttorncijs-Ciencral. 

731.  Appointment,    Election,    Qualillcations,    Etc 1142 

732.  Common- F. aw    Powers     1143 

733.  Constitutional  and   Statutory   Powers  and   Duties  (Jeiieially    ....  1145 

734.  Discretion     114(5 

735.  Employment  of  Special  (  ounscl    1 147 

73f!.  ()i)inion  of  State  Attorney-(J<'neral    1148 

I'M.   .\ssi>(;nit    .Attorneys-General     1148 

738.   Compf  ii.sation      1149 

.4.S-  State   l,(iir  Ofjicrr. 

730.  Appearaiicf  for  Sditc    1149 

740.    i'rot.-ctinll    (,f    I'ul.lir    Itiglits     1151 

74  1.   Riglits    Which    .May    I'.f    i'rotiTted   Geiirraiiy    1153 


TABLE    OF    CO.N TEXTS.  XXXV 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

742.  Enforcement  of  rublic  Trusts  and  Charities   11.54 

743.  Abatement  of  Public  Nuisances   1154 

744.  Collection  and  Assessment  of  Taxes    115.5 

745.  Suits  by  or  against  State  Ollicers 1 155 

740.  Suits  by  or  against  ^Municipal   or  (^)uasi-.Muni(ipal   ( 'ori)()r;itiuns. 

Etc 115li 

747.  Suits  by  or  against  Private  Coiporations    1157 

748.  Necessity  of  Request  to  Act  for  State 1 158 

749.  Pleadings     1  loO 

750.  Costs  and   P^xpenses    1160 

Control  of  Litigation. 

751.  State  Litigation  under  Control  of  Attorney-General 1160 

752.  Dismissal    of    Suit    1161 

753.  Compromise     1162 

Criminal  Prosecutions. 

754.  Authority  to  Conduct  Criminal  Trials    1162 

755.  Control    of    Trial     1164 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

SUSPENSION   AND   DISBARMENT   GENERALLY. 

Poirer  to  Suspend  or  Disbar. 

756.  Revocability    of    License    1165 

757.  Power  to   Suspend  or   Disbar  Generally    1106 

758.  Inherent  Power    1167 

759.  As  Affected  by  Statute  11 70 

760.  Basis  of   Power    1171 

761.  Nature  of  Power   1172 

Purpose  and  Effect  of  Suspension  and  Disbarment. 

762.  Purpose    1173 

763.  Effect    1174 

Jurisdiction. 

764.  In    General     1175 

705.  Courts  Having  Power  to  Admit  Attornevs   1176 


XXXVl  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  766.  Court  before  Which  Attorney  Practices    1177 

767.  Appellate  Courts    1177 

708.  Inferior   Courts    1178 

769.  Disbarment   from    Practicing    in    Certain    Governmental    Depart- 

ments    1178 

770.  Jurisdiction  to  Disbar  for  Offenses  Committed  in  Another  Court  1179 

771.  As  to  Offenses  Committed  in  Another  Jurisdiction  1180 

772.  In  England  and  Canada   1181 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

GROUNDS  FOR  DISBARMENT. 

Misconduct  Generally. 

§  773.  Misconduct  as  Cause  for  Disbarment   1186 

774.  Nature  of  Misconduct    1 187 

775.  What  Constitutes  Misconduct  Generally   1187 

776.  Ignorance  of  the  Law   1188 

Misconduct  toicard  Court. 

777.  Generally     1189 

778.  Deceiving  the  Court    1190 

779.  Attack  upon  Court's  Integrity   1192 

780.  Threatening,   Intimidating,  or   Coercing  Judge    1193 

781.  Abuse  of  Court  or  Jiulge  Thereof   1194 

782.  Criticising    the    Court    1195 

783.  Criticism  after  Termination  of  Cause 1 107 

784.  Disavowal  and  Apology   1197 

In  Pleadings,  Briefs,  and  Other   Writi)igs. 

785.  Statements   in   Pleadings    11 08 

786.  Statements  in   Briefs    1200 

787.  Statements  in  Letters  Written  to  Judge   1200 

788.  r.ilx'ling    the    Court    1201 

789.  \\licr<!  Attorney  is  also  Ivlitor  of  Newspaper   1202 

790.  Fair   Criticism  as   Distinguished   from   Libel    1203 

Contempt  of  Court. 

701.    fi.iH  rally    120.") 

792.  (  ontiriipt  as  (JkhiiiiI    for    Di^haniiciit    1206 


TABLE    OF    CONTENTS.  XXXVll 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Miscoruluct  toward  Attorneys. 

793.  Fair  and  Honorable  Treatment   Essential    1207 

794.  Improper    Conduct    1208 

Misconduct  toirard  Client. 

795.  Generally     1209 

796.  Fraud  and  Deceit   1210 

797.  False   Kepresentations    1211 

798.  Representing  Conflicting  Interests    1212 

799.  Acquiring   Adverse   Interests    1213 

800.  Undue  Advantage    1214 

801.  Misconduct  in  Connection  with  Settlements   1215 

802.  Overcharging    Client     1216 

803.  Changed  View  of  the  Law   1217 

Misappropriation  of  Client's  Funds. 

804.  General   Rule    1218 

805.  Application  of  Rule ]219 

806.  Misappropriation  by  Partner    1221 

807.  In   Professional   Capacity    1221 

808.  Necessity  of  Demanding  Payment   1222 

809.  Recovery  of  Judgment  for  Amount  Due   1223 

810.  Defenses   Generally    1224 

811.  Client's  Indebtedness  to  Attorney   1225 

812.  Payment     1226 

813.  Payment  after  Institution  of  Proceedings    1227 

814.  Attachment    of    Funds     1228 

815.  Inexperience      1228 

Perverting  or  Ohstructing  Justice. 

816.  Generally   1229 

817.  Abuse  of  Authority  or  Legal  Process  1230 

818.  Interference  with  Witnesses   1231 

819.  Inducing  Witnesses  to  Swear  Falsely   1232 

820.  Improper  Contract  with  Witnesses   1234 

821.  Contract  with  Detective  Formerly  Employed  by  Opponent 1235 

822.  Permitting  Client  to  Present  False  Testimony   1235 

823.  Presenting  False  Testimony  in  Disbarment  Proceedings 1236 

824.  Advocating  False  or  Fictitious  Claims 1237 

825.  Presenting  Fictitious  Case  to  Court 1238 


XXXVm  TABLE    OF    CONTKXTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

§  826.  Making  False  Statements  to  Court   12.3J) 

827.  False  Affidavits    123!) 

828.  Falsifying  and  Abstracting  Public  Records  and  Papers 1240 

829.  Offering  False  or  Fictitious  .Sureties 1242 

830.  Interference  with  Jurors    1243 

831.  Fraud    l'J43 

832.  Fraud  and  Other  Misconduct  in  Divorce  Cases 1244 

833.  Conspiracy  to  Extort  Money  124.5 

834.  Organizing  Sham  Corporations  for  Unlawful  Purposes 1246 

835.  Compromising  Criminal  Cases 1246 

836.  Obstruction  of  Justice   1247 

837.  Obstruction  by  Corporation  Claim  Department  Under  Supervision 

of  Attorney    1248 

838.  Preventing  Extradition    ]24J> 

Fraud  in  Procuring  Admission,  and  Unauthorized  Acts  and  Practice. 

839.  Fraud  in  Procuring  Admission  Generally 1249 

840.  Concealment  of  Prior  Disbarment   1250 

841.  Unauthorized    Acta    1251 

842.  Unauthorized  Practice   1251 

Conduct  Contrary  to  Public  Folic;/. 

843.  Unlawful  Contracts   1253 

844.  Solicitation  of  Business  Generally   1254 

845.  Solicitation    by    Advertisement    1255 

Misconduct  as  OjJiciaL 

846.  Misconduct  as  Judge 1256 

847.  Misconduct  as  District  Attorney      1257 

H4S.   Miscomhict  as  Notary  Public    1258 

M isrondii't  Outside  Scijpc  (if  I'rofcssinnal  Relations. 

84!t.  Ceil,  rally 1259 

H.')0.    MoTal    l)clin<incMcy    1261 

851.  i:\f.-n<   ..f   lliilc  as  to  Moral    l)clin(|ucncy    1262 

852.  Dislionrsty      1264 

Crini  inal    M  isiiDiduel . 

853.  Gcn.rallv    1264 


TABLE    OF    COATED TS.  XXXIX 

[  Rcforonccs  arc  to  pages.] 

§  854.  Nature  of  CriiiK'   \\  arrantiiig    l)isl»arnu'iit    J2{j.3 

855.  Blackmail    1266 

856.  Conviction  of   ("rime  as  Ground    for  Disharmcnt    ]267 

857.  C'onvictit)ii   Involving  Moral   '1  uijiitudc    126!) 

858.  Conviction  as  Ipso  Facto  Discjualilication  or  JJisbai'incnt 1270 

859.  Conviction  in  Another  Jurisdiction    1271 

860.  Necessity  of  Conviction    1271 

861.  Conviction  Unnecessary    1273 

862.  Effect  of  Appeal   1275 

86.3.  P]ffect  of  Pardon    1276 

8G4.  Effect  of  Acquittal    1277 


CHAPTER  XXXL 

PROCEDURE,  JUDGMENT  AND  PUNISHMENT. 

Mature   of   Disbarment   Procedure. 

%  865.  Generally     1280 

866.  Summary  Procedure   1281 

867.  Whether  Civil  or  Criminal   Proceeding    1282 

Who  May  Institute  Proceedings. 

868.  Generally   12S3 

869.  Bar  Associations    1284 

870.  Right  of  Court  to  Act  on  Its  Own  :\Iotion 1286 

Mode  of  Proceeding. 

871.  Generally    1287 

872.  Necessity  of  Preferring  Charges    1288 

873.  Manner  of  Presenting  Charges   1289 

874.  Sufficient    Charges   1290 

875.  Insufficient    Charges    1291 

876.  Verification    1293 

877.  Rule  to  Show  Cause  and  Notice  Thereof   1294 

Defenses. 

878.  Generally    1297 

879.  Where  Criminal  IMisconduct  is  Cliaigcd    1298 

880.  Limitation  and  Laches   1299 

881.  Defensive  Pleading    1300 


xl  TABLE    OF    CONTENTS. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Hearing. 

§  882.  Necessity  of  Hearing   1301 

883.  Mode   of   Hearing    1303 

884.  Right  to  Trial  by  Jury 1305 

885.  Qualitication  of  Judge   1305 

Evidence. 

886.  Generally 1306 

887.  Allegations  and  Proof 1308 

888.  Presumptions    1309 

889.  Evidence  of  Accomplice   1310 

890.  Affidavits  and  Depositions   1310 

891.  Records  and  Proceedings  in  other  Actions  and  Courts 1311 

892.  Failure  of  Respondent  to  Testifj^ 1312 

Findings,  Verdict,  Judgment  and  Punishment. 

893.  In  General  1312 

894.  Punishment   1314 

895.  Costs  and  Expenses  of  Proceeding   1321 

CHAPTER  XXXIL 

REVIEW  OF  DISBARMENT  PROCEEDINGS. 

§  896.  In  General   1323 

897.  Appeal    1323 

898.  Writ  of  Error    1328 

899.  Certiorari     1 328 

900.  Mandamus      1329 

901.  J5y  Accuser,  IVtilion  or  State 1331 

CIIAPTKU  XXXTII. 

ItKlNSIA'l  i:.MFN'i". 

§  902.  In  General   13,32 

nil.!.    I'roii-diiro     1337 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[Refer 


Aaron  v.  U.  S.  155  FeJ.  8^3,  84 

C.  C.  A.  (3? 204,  415, 

A.  B.  Ee,  3  Johns.  (N.  Y.)   261, 

4  Johns.    191    

A.   B.   Attorney,    Ex   p.   4   Jur. 

(Eng.)    630    

Abbe  V.  Rood,  6  McLean  106,  1 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  6 383,  3fl5, 

Abbott  V.  Blohm,  54  App.  Div. 

422,   66   N.   Y.   S.   838    

Abbott  V.  Abbott,   18  Neb.  503, 

26  N.  W.  361   

V.  Dutton,  44  Vt.  546,  551, 

8  Am.  Rep.  394  .  ..414, 

420,  440,  441,  445, 

Garden    City,    v,    34    Kan. 

283,  8  Pac.  473    ..101, 

V.  Lee.    86    Conn.    392,    85 

AtL   526    

V.  National   Bank   of   Com- 
merce,   20    Wasli.    552, 

50  Pac.  376 

V.  Smith,  4  Ind.  452 

V.  Stinchfield,    71    Me.    213 

V.  Striblen,  6  la.  191 

V,  Stone,  172  111.  634,  50  N. 
E.  328,  64  Am.  St.  Rep. 

60     772, 

V.  United  Rvs.  Co.,  138  Mo. 

App.  530,  119  S.  W.  904 

997, 

V.  Williams,    15    Colo.   512, 

25  Pac.  450 

V.  Zeigler.  9  Ind.  511 

Abeel  v.  Swann,  21  Misc.  677, 

47  N.  Y.  S.  1088   

Abel   V.   Douney,    110    111.    App. 

343    

V.  Hansen,    62    Wash.    492, 

114   Pac.    ]S2    S-)4. 

897,  898,  902, 


ences  are  to  pages.] 

Abell  V.  Howe,  43   Vt.  403    ...      209 
Aber,  Re,  18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  110 

977,    990,  1057 
432       Abercrombie  v.  Jordan,  8  Q.  B. 

D.   (Eng.)    187   107 

61       Abernathy  v.  Latimore,  19  Ohio 

286    440 

1223       Abert  v.  Taylor  (Ky.)   37  S.  W. 

676    848 

489       A.  B's  Estate,  Tuck.  (N.  Y.)  247     553 

Abingdon   Mills   v.   Grogan,   167 
431  Ala.   146,   52    So.    596,   57   So. 

42    633.  634.  638,  639, 

1014  642,    043,   645,     G46 

Abohosh    V.    Buck    (Ky.)    43    S. 

W.    425     859 

518       Abraham    v.    North    German    F. 
Ins.  Co.  37  Fed.  731,  3 

103  L.R.A.   188    408 

V.  Roseburg,  55  Ore.  359, 
341         Ann.  Cas.  1912A  597, 

105  Pac.  401 101 

Abrabamson    v.    Canonieus,    65 

533  Fed.  525    361 

522       Ackerman  v.  Ackerman,  11  Abb. 

529  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   256   ..989,  1072 

327  V.  Ackerman,    14    Abb.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  229  ..610,  978,  1030 
V.  Wagener,    55    Hun    60S 
773  Mem.    8   N.   Y.   S.   457 

785,  612,     613 
Ackert  v.  Barker,  131  Mass.  436 
1001  667,     670 

Acock  V.  IMcBroom,  38  Mo.  342     241 
431       Acton  V.   Coffman,   74   Iowa   17, 

124  36  N.  W.  774 639 

Adair's  Claim,  14  Op.  Attv.-Gen. 

586  54     .'.1138,   1140 

Adams  v.  Bankart,  1  C.  M.  &  R. 

040  (Eng.)   681 488 

V.  Com.  129  Kv.  255,  111  S. 
W.  348,  33  Kv.  L.  Rep. 
903         779  1099,  1107,  1114 

xli 


xlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Adams    v.    Ft.    Plain    Bank,    23 
How.    Pr.     (X.    Y.)    45 

248,  2.)0.     870 
V.  Ft.  Plain  Bank,  3G  N.  Y. 

255    9G.3 

V.  Fox,  40  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
442    ...  .875,   87(i,   !>!)(), 

904,  104S,  1000,  10G1 
V.  Fox,  27  How.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  409 802,  1030 

V.  Gilbert,  9  Wend.  (X.  Y.) 

499     444,     518 

V.  Henning,  9  La.  Ann.  225     208 
V.  Hopkins    (Cal.)    09    Pac. 
228,    aflirmed    73    Pae. 

971     731,     738 

V.  Hopkins,    5    Johns.     (X. 

Y.)    252    545 

V.  Kehlor    Milling    Co.    38 

Fed.  281    841,   842,   1022 

V.  Landrum,  9  Ky.  L.  Eep. 

287    898 

V.  Lee,  82  Ind.  587   1055 

V.  Mills,    3    How.    Pr.     (X. 

Y.)    219    131,     1.32 

V.  Mott,   44   Vt.   259    959 

V.  Mowrv,   0   Mo.   App.  582     421 
V.  Xellis",  59  How.  Pr.    (X. 

Y.)     385     245 

V.  Xiagara  Cycde  Fittings 
Co.,  ]  0  X."  Y.  Ann.  Cas. 
401,  74  N.  Y.  S.  485.. 

860,  1010 
V.  Roberts,  119  Ky.  364,  83 
S.  W.   1035,  26  Kv.  L. 

Rep.    1271     i092,  1096 

V.  Robinson.  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 

461,  402    355,     510 

V.  Roller,  35  Tex.  711.  .385,     405 
V.  Scliniitt,    68    X.    J.    Eq. 
168,  60  Atl.  345  .  .  .731, 

739,  740,  1025 
V.  Stevens,    23    ^VeIld.     (X. 
Y.)    57,   26   Wend.    (X. 

Y.)    451,  455    689, 

691,  696,  697,  701,  781, 

862,    869,     723 
.■\danifl    Kxp.    Co.    v.    Adams,    1 

MacArtliur   ( D.  C.)    642    ....    1016 
Adee  v.   Adee,   55   Ajip.    Div.   ()3, 

60  X.  Y.  S.  1101    .  .<isii,    1010 
V.   Howe,    15    II im     (  N.    \.) 

20 344.  345.  346,     318 

AdickcH  V.  I.owrv,  12  S.  ('.  97   .  .      4()(i 
Adkin  V.   I'ilien,'  136  Mi<li.  6S2, 

100    N.    W.    176    648 


are  to  pages.] 

Admission  of  Attorneys,  77  Atl. 

viii    73 

Admission    to    tlie    Bar,    Re,    61 

Xeb.  58,  84  X.  W.  611    .  .  .24, 

34,  35,  36,  38,  39,  58,  59,  61,       03 

Adriaans,  Re.  17  App.  Cas.   (D. 

C.)    39,    ,  .  .1107,    1168, 

1174,  1195,   3196,  1199, 

1200,  1208 
28    App.   Cas.    (D.    C.)    515 

1306,  1323,   1326 
33    App.    Cas.   203    .  .  .1333, 

1335,  1337 
Adriatic    F.    Ins.    Co.    v.   Tread- 
well,   108  U.  S.   361.  2   S.   Ct. 
772,    27    U.    S.     (L.    ed.)     754 

896,     897 
Adsit  V.  Hall,  3  How.  Pr.  X.  S. 

(X.  Y.)   373   1030.  1043,  1073 

Adve  V.   Hanna,   47   Ja.  264,  29 

Am.    Rep.    484    291,     750 

African  ^Methodist  Bethel  Church 
V.    Carmack,    2    Md.    Ch.    143 

416,  419,  487,     531 
Agnew  V.  Walden,  84  Ala.  502, 

504,  4   So.  672    229, 

230,  307,  705,  707,  802,     804 
Agricultural  Ins.  Co.  v.  Harrow, 
70  App.  Div.  413,  75  X. 

Y.  S.  128   257 

V.  Smith,  112  App.  Div. 
840.  35  Civ.  Proc.  338, 
98  X.  Y.  S.  347   ...  993, 

996,   1030 
Ah  Foe  V.  Bennett,  35  Ore.  231, 

58    Pac.    508     286,     742 

Ahlhauser  v.  Butler,  57  Fed.  121     554 
Ahlrichs   v.    Cullman,    130   Ala. 

439,  30  So.  415    103 

Ah  reus,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hoeher, 

106  Ky.  692,  51  S.  W.  194  ...   643 
Aiken  v.'  Com.,  68  S.  W.  849,  24 

Kv.  L.  Hop.  523 628 

v.  Kili)iiriu',  27  Me.  252 

167,  188,  221 
v.  \'an  ^^■ert,  38  Misc.  379, 

77  X.  Y.  S.  881  279 

Ainslie  v.'Boynton,  2  Barb.  (X. 

Y.)  258  1050 

Ainsworth,   Re,    [1905]    2  K.   B. 

(Kng.)    348    107 

Aiikcn,  \U'.  4  H.  &  Aid.  47,  6  K. 

C.    L.    .•!S4    (ilO,     615 

All)ce  V.   liayden,  25    Minn.  267 

404,     408 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


xliii 


[Rcfeionct'S 

Albcis  V.  Merchants'  Excliaiige, 

J 38  Mo.  140,  3!)  S.  W.  473   .  .      G49 
Alhers  Realty  Co.,  Ko,  140  App. 

Div.  277,  1*2.1  N.  Y.  S.  17!)   .  .    1015 
Albert  v.  Albert,  78  Md.  338,  28 

Atl.  389   41G 

Albert  I'almer  Co.  v.  Van  Artlcn, 
(54  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  70.  49 
Super.    Ct.    89.    4    Civ.    Proc. 

44    989,  996,  1030,   1072,  1085 

Albertson  v.  Goldsbv,  28  Ala. 
711,  65  Am.  Dec.  380   .  ..250. 

3.-)!,     508 
Albright     v.     fiercer,      14     Pa. 

Super.   Ct.   63    303.   304,     599 

Albritton  v.  Bird,  R.  M.  Charlt. 

(Ga.)   93   561 

Albro  V.  Davton,  28  III.  325   ...      561 
Alden  v.  Dv*er,  92  Minn.  134,  99 

N."^  W.  784  359 

V.  Goddard,  73  Me.  345 

208,  218 
V,  Pryal,  60  Cal.  215  ....  776 
V.  White,  32  hid.  App.  393, 

68  N.  E.  913  1033 

V.  W.  J.  Dver  &  Bros.,  92 
Minn.  "l34,  99  N.  W. 

784  452 

Alderman  v.  Nelson,  111  Ind. 

255,  12  N.  E.  394 

999,  10.52 
V.  People,   4   Mich.   414,    69 

Am.    Dec.    321     ...196,     226 
Aldis  V.  Gardner,  1  C.  &  K.  564, 

47   E.  C.   L.  564    585 

Aldrich,  Re,  (Vt.)  86  Atl.  801 
665,  729,  838.  1209,  1215, 
1217,  1225,  1254,  1288,  1300. 

1304,  1317,  1320 
Aldrich  v.  Brown,  103  IMass. 
527  ...706,  712,  781, 

873,  900,  937,  940 
V.  Kinney,  4  Conn.  380, 

10  Am.  Dec.  151, 446 

Alexander,  Re,  167  Mich.  495, 
133  N.  W.  491  .  .  .  57, 

74,   84 
Re,  137  App.  Div.  770,  122 

N.  Y.  S.  479  1221, 

12.>9.  1260 

Re,  193  Fed.  749  14 

Alexander  v.  Burns,  6  La.  Ann. 

704,  355 

V.  Carpenter,    3    Denio    (N. 

Y.)    266    540 


are  to  pages.] 

Alexander  v.  Dcnaveaux,  53  Cal. 

663    351,  462,     465 

V.  Denavcaux,  59  Cal.  476  462 
V.  Grand  Ave.  R.  Co.,  54 

Mo.  App.  66  804, 

807,  979,  1040 
v.  McDow,    108   Cal.   25,   41 

Pac.   24    778 

V.  Munroe,  54  Ore.  500, 
101  Pac.  903,  103  Pac. 
514,  135  Am.   St.  Rep. 

840   673,  735,  1082 

v.  Ransom,  16  S.  D.  302,  92 

N.  W.  418 328 

V.  State,  56  Ga.  478   415. 

V.  U.  S.  138  U.  S.  353,  11 
S.  Ct.  350,  34  U.  S.   (L. 

ed.)   954 190,  191, 

213,     214 
Alexandria  Canal  Co.  v.  Swann, 
5  How.  83,  12  U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

60    489     490- 

Alger  V.  Turner,  105  Ga.  178, 

31  S.  E.  423  216 

Allard    v.    Lamirande,    29    Wis. 

502    661,  665,  686,  729,     743: 

Allcorn    v.    Butler,    9    Tex.    56 

710,    711,   793,   794,    806,     915. 
AUeman,     Re,    20    Am.    Bankr. 

Rep.  745    628. 

Allen,  Re,  75  N.  H.  301,  73  Atl. 

804   1218,  1227,  1264 

Allen  v.  Baker,  29  Misc.  337,  60 

N.  Y.  S.  472   768 

V.  Bollenbacher,    97    N.    E. 

817    179 

V.  Brown,  4  Met.  (Ky.)    342     147 
V.  Codman,   139   Mass.   136, 

29  N.  E.  537 632 

V.  Flynn,  52  Misc.  121,  101 

N.    Y.    S.    747     .  ..765,     962 
V.  Frawley,    106    Wis.    638, 

82    N.    W.   593    .  .  .515,     581 
V.  Green,    1    Bailey    L.     (S. 

C.)     448     424.     436 

V.  Gregg    (Pa.)    16   Atl.   46     911 
V.  Hawkes,  13  Pick.  (Mass.) 

79     662,     758 

V.  Harrison,  30  Vt.  219,  73 

Am.  Dec.  302 177, 

186,     222 
V.  Hartford   L.   Ins.   Co.    72 

Conn.  693,  45  Atl.  955     199 
V,  Jarvis,  32  U.  C.  Q.  B.  56, 

64     106,     108: 


xliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Allen  V.  :\rcColla.  2.)  Ta.  4C4,  9G 

Am.  Dee.  50   207 

V.  Parish,   05   Kan.  4!)0,   70 

Pac.    351     ...7i:,    712,     950 

V.  Poole,  54  :\Iisc.  323 267 

V.  Root,  39  Tex.  589 202 

V.  Stone,  10  Barb.    (X.  Y.) 

547 437,   444,   445, 

454,     518 
V.  West     Bav      City,      140 
ilich.  Ill,  6  Ann.  Cas. 

35,  103  X.  W.  514 132 

Allentown  v.  Light,  15  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.    019    17,       18 

Allert,    Re,    173    Fed.    691,    23 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    101    822 

Allew  V.  Codman,  139  Mass.  136, 

29  X.  E.  537    639 

Alley   V.    Bowen-]\rerrill    Co..   76 

Ark.  4,  0  Ann.  Cas.  127,  80  S. 

W.  838.  113  Am.  St.  Rep.  73     323 

Alliance  Bank  v.  Tucker,  15  W. 

R.   (Eng.)   992,  17  L.  T.  X.  S. 

13    323 

AUis  V.  Day,  14  Minn.  516.  .886, 

935,     936 

V.  StoAvell.  85  Fed.  481 133 

Allison  V.  Chicago  &  X.   W.  R. 

Co.,   42   La.   274    685 

V.  Falconer,  75  Ark.  343,  87 

S.   W.   639    200,     268 

V.  Scheeper.     9     Daly     3t')5 

403,  741,  931,  932,     956 
Alpers  V.  Hunt.  80  Cal.  78,  24 
Pac.  846,  21  Am.  St.  Rep.  17, 

9  L.R.A.  483    757,  1254 

Alspaugh  V.  Jones,  64  X.  C.  29 

231,     435 
Althou.se  V.  Wells,  40  Hun  330.  .      175 
Altkrug  V.   Horowitz,   111    App. 
Div.    420,    97    X.    Y.    S.    710 

889,  905,     943 
Alton  V.  Cilmanton,  2  X.  H.  520 

341,  482,  483,     487 
Alwood  V.  Mansfield,  .59  111.  49() 

285,     302 
Amhrose   v.    McDonald,    53    Cal. 

28    383 

Aml)H   V.   Atcliison,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

114    Fed.   317    049 

Anieriran    Cotton    Co.    v.    Sirn- 
monH,   39  'lex.  (,'iv.   Apj).   189, 

87   S.   W.   H42    724,     736 

Anicriciin  ]'!inigrant  Co.  v.  Long, 
105  Jowa   194,  74  N.  W.  9-40     481 


are  to  pages.] 

American    Fxch.    Xat.    Bank   v. 

Coubert,  07  Misc.  0U2,  124  X. 

Y.   S.   817,   affirmed   140   App. 

Div.  875,  130  X.  Y.  S.  1103.  .      857 

American   Ins.  Co.  v.  Oakley,  9 

Paige  490    437,  440,^441 

445,  518,  538,     895 
American  I^nion  Exp.  Co.  v.  St. 
Josepli,    ()0    Mo.   075,    27    Am. 

Rep.  382    102 

Ames  V.  Bigclow,  15  Wash.  532, 

40  Pac.  1040 774 

V.  Oilman,  10  Met.  (Mass.) 

239    25,  27,       885 

V.  Potter,  7  R.  I.  205   903 

V.   Rathbun,    55    Barb.    (X. 

Y.)     194    642 

V.  Snider,  55  HI.  498 562 

V.  Snider.  69  111.  377   .  .639,     646 
Amestoy  Estate  Co.  v.  Los  An- 
geles,   5    Cal.    App.    273,    90 

Pac.    42     501,     626 

Amherst    College   v.    Allen,    165 

Mass.  178,  42  X.  E.  570 562 

Amore  v.  La  Mothe,  5  Abb.  X. 

Cas.   (X.  Y.)   146   245,     247 

Amsterdam  Ave.,  Re,  112  App. 
Div.   100,   103,   105,  98  X.   Y. 

S.   331,  334    357,     385 

An  Attorney.  Re,  1  Hun  (X.  Y.) 

321    ■. 1282 

Re.  11  Jur.  396 013 

Anderson,   Re,   103   Fed.   854,   4 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    040     817 
V.   Anderson,    12    Ga.    App. 

700,  78  S.  E.  271    656 

V.  Bos^vorth,  15  R.  I.  443, 
8    Atl.   339,   2    Am.    St. 

Rep.  910    009,  840,  1038 

V.  Canadav,      (Okla.)       131 

Pac.   097    524 

v.  Caraway,  27  ^V.  Va.  385 

070,  729 
V.  Conklin,   11    Kv.  L.  Rep. 

1S3   ■ 583 

V.  Ddnahue,  1  10  Minn.  380. 

133  X.  W.  975  853 

V.  E.  de  Braekcdcer  &  Co., 
25  Misc.  343,  28  Civ. 
Proc.  300,  55  X.  Y.  S. 

721     989,     990 

v.    l'"riciid,    71     111.    475 

032,  645 
v.  I'Viciid,  S5  III.  135  ..(;35,  646 
v.  llawhc,  1  15  111.  33,  3  X. 

E.  500  443 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


xlv 


[References 

Anderson  v.  Ileiulrickson,  1  Nel). 

(Unofticial)     Kep.    tilO, 

95  N.  W.  844 4.J  1 

V.  Hultman,   12   S.   D.   J05, 

80    N.    W.    1G5    418 

V.  Itasca    Lumber    Co.,    8(i 

Minn.    480,    91    N.    \V. 

12,  291.  .  755,  75G,  807,   1014 
V.  McAleenan,  15  Dalv  444, 

8  N.  Y.  S.  483    ^ 344 

V.  Metropolitan   St.  R.  Co., 

86  Kan.   179,  119  Pac. 

379   1016 

V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

10  Kan.  App.  575  mem., 

61    Pac.    982     1042 

V.  New  York  &  H.  R.  Co., 

150  App.  Div.  432,  135 

N.    Y.   S.   30    609 

V.  Oldham,  82  Tex.  231,  18 

S.   W.   557    385 

V.  Rountree,  1   Pin.    (Wis.) 

115   10 

V.  Seattle  Lighting  Co.,   71 

Wash.     155,     127     Pac. 

1108    637 

V.  Sloan,  1  Colo.  33 131 

V.  Sutton,    2     Duv.     (Ky.) 

480,    481     416,     495 

V.  Tarpley,  6  Smedes  &  M. 

(Miss.)     507     875 

V,  Treat,   172  U.  S.  24,   19 

S.  Ct.  67,  43  U.  S.   (L. 

ed.)    351    146 

Andrews,  Re.  137  App.  Div.  353, 

121  N.  Y.  S.  935    1211 

V.  Beck,   23   Tex.  455.. 149,     150 
V.  Harrington,       19      Barb. 

(N.   Y.)    343    432 

V.  Long,   19   Hun.    (N.   Y.) 

303   418 

V.  Morse,  12  Conn.  444,  31 

Am.    Dec.    752     ..995, 

1030.    1031,    1047,  1049 
V.  O'Reilly,  34  R.  I.  256,  83 

Atl.   119     484 

V.  Simms,    33    Ark.    771  .  . 

154,   156,  157,  161,   191     192 
V.  Solomon,    Pet.     (C.    C.) 

356,    1    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

378   173 

V.  Thayer,     30      Wis.     228 

420.    585,     687 
V.  Thompson.       1       Houst. 

(Del.)    522    329 


are  to  pages.] 

Andrews  v.  Tying,  94  N.  Y.  16     948 
V.  Wilbur,    (Cal.)    41    Pac. 

790   607 

Andriac  v.  Richardson,  125  La. 

883,  51  So.  1024 728,     765 

Aiigell  V.   Bennett,   1    Spr.   85,   1 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  387    1041,  1044 

Anglo-American  Land,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Dyer,  181  Mass.  593,  64 
N.   E.   416,   92    Am.   St.   Rep. 

437    388 

Anglo-Continental  Chemical 

Works    V.    Dillon,    111     App. 
Div.  418,  97  N.  Y.  S.  1081.. 

237,  254,  262,     263 
Anketell  v.  Torrey,  7  Smedes  & 

M.   (Miss.)   467    380 

Annely   v.    De    Saussure,    12    S. 

C.  488    311,  352,  356,     359 

Anonymous,  11  111.  488  ..437,  538 

31  Me.  590,  516 

76  Me.  207, 716,  814,  815 

8  Mass.  370 198 

7  N.  J.  L.  162  1272 

20  N.  J.  L.  494 10 

16  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  423  280 
Col.  &  C.  Cas.  (N.  Y.  176  471 
Col.  &  C.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  426  472 
2  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  589  545 

2  Daly  (N.  Y.)  533  1040 

4  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  290..   131 

1  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  108.. 455, 

457,  517 

3  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  456  ..57   64 

18  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  578  ..   472 

19  Wend.  (N.  Y^)  87 474 

22  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  656,  ..  1295 

2  Gall.  101,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

445  .541 

17  Beav.  (Eng.)  475  1332 

1   Mod.    (Eng.)    209    524 

3  N.  &  P.  ('Eng.)  389  ..  1268 
1    Salk.    (Eng.)    88    442 

Anslev  &  Co.  v.  Anderson, 
Adair  &  Co.  35  Ga.  8   573 

Anthers  Park  Regent  Min.  Co. 
v.  Cunningham,  29  Colo.  284, 
68   Pac.  226    854 

Anthony  v.  Stinson,  4  Kan.  211     936 

Antioch  College  v.  Carroll,  11 
Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  220.  25 
Cine.    L.    Bui.    289    365,     369 

Antrobus  v.  Sherman,  65  la. 
230,  21  N.  W.  579,  54  Am. 
Rep.  7    371,  522.     899 

Appeal  of — see  name  of  party. 


xlvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Appleman  v.  Appleman,  140  Mo. 
309,  41  S.  W.  794,  62  Am.  St. 

Rep.  732    849 

Applications    for    Admission    to 
Practice,  Re,  14  S.  D.  429.  85 

X.  W.  92    57,  60,       88 

Application  for  License  to  Prac- 
tice Law,  Re,  67  VV. 
Va.  213,  678  S.  E.  597 

12,   22,    31,    43,   91,       95 
Re,    143   N.   C.    1,   10   Ann. 
Cas.  187,  55  S.  E.  635, 
10  L.R.A.(N.S.)    288.. 

32,  33,  41,  44,  66,       92 
Arbuckle   v.   Templeton,    65   Vt. 

205,  25   Atl.    101)5    166,     198 

Arbuthnot   v.    Brookfield   Loan, 
etc..  Assoc,  98  Mo.  App.  382, 

72  S.  W.  132   220 

Arctander,   Re,   26    Minn.   25.    1 

N.  W.  43    1239,   1258,  1259 

Arden  v.  Patterson,  5  Johns. 
Ch.     {N.    Y.)     44.. 274. 

284,  676,     081 
V.  Tucker,  4  B.  &  Ad.  815. 

24  E.  C.  L.  171    26 

Arend   v.   Cottle,   13   Misc.   612. 

34  X.  Y.  S.  913   860 

Argus  Co.  V.  Hotchkiss,  121 
App.   Div.   378,   107   N.  Y.   S. 

138   462,  463,     543 

Arkansas  City  Bank  v.  Mc- 
Dowell.  7    Kan.   App.   508,  52 

Pac.  56    218 

Arkan.sas    County    v.    Freeman, 

31  Ark.  266 713 

Arkenburgh  v.  Arkcnburgh.  27 
Misc.  760,  59  N.  Y.  S. 
612,  afliimed  49  App. 
Div.  636  mem.,  64  N. 
Y.  S.  742,  176  N.  Y. 
551,    68    N.    E.    1114.. 

995,    1018,    1030,  1037 
V.  Little,  49  App.  Div.  630 
64    X.    Y.    S.    742,    af- 
lirnied    176   N.   Y.   551, 

(i8    N.    E.    1114    994 

.\rlingtoii  Hotel  Co.  v.  Ewing, 
124  Tenn.  536,  Ann.  Cas. 
191 3 A  121,  138  S.  W.  954.  38 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    842    754,     760 

Arm! jo  v.  Henry.  14  N.  M.  LSI, 
89  Pac.  305,  25   L.ll.A.(X.S.) 

275    773 

Arniin  v.  LfwimiH,  82  W  is.  H6,  ;">  1 

N.    \V.     1097     940 


Armitage   v.   Sullivan,    00    Iowa 

426,  29  X.  \V.  3!!'.)    607,   1001 

Armour  v.  Kilmer,  28  Out.  618 

699,   700,   709,     869 
Armout  v.  Dinner,  4  X.  \V.  Ter. 

30    700,     709 

Armstrong,  Re,  [1896J  1  Cli. 
536,  65  L.  J.  Ch.  258, 
74    L.    T.    X.    S.    134, 

44  W.  R.  281   537 

V.  Craig,  18  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
387      ..444,     516,     517, 

518,     577 
V.  Ilurst,   39    S.  C.   498,    18 

S.    E.    150    ..390,    408,     410 
Arndt  v.  Hosford,  82  la.  499,  48 

X.    W.   981    941,     942 

Arnett,  Re,  112  Fed.  770,  7  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  522    819 

Arno  v.    Wayne    Circuit  Judge, 

42  Mich.  362,  4  N.  W.  147    .  .      518 
Arnold  v.  Carter,   19  App.  Cas. 

(D.    C.)    259    847 

v.  Higgins,  11  U.   C.  Q.  B. 

446    338 

v.  Xye,   23   Mich.   286    492 

V.   Phillips.  59  III.  App.  213     526 
V.  Poole,  4  M.  &  G.  860,  43 

E.  C.   L.   444    490 

V.  Robertson,  3  Daly  CS. 
Y.)  298,  appeal  dis- 
missed   50    N.    Y.    083 

234,   559,   560.     589 
V.  State,    81    Wis.    278,    51 

X.  W.   426    1122 

Arnsparger  v.  Xorman,  101  Kv. 
208,  40  S.  W.  574,  19  Kv.  L. 

Rep.  381    ' 1124 

Arrington  v.  Arrington,   102  X. 

C.  491,  9  S.  E.  200    ..      233 
v.  Arrington.  114  X.  C.  151. 

19  S.   K.  351    269,     270 

V.  Arrington,      116     X.     C. 

170,  21  S.  E.  181.. 309,     318 
v.  Sneed,  18  Tex.  135..  .237, 

239,  240,  254,     750 
Arszman,   i\e,  40  Ind.  Apj).  218. 

81    X.    ]<:.  680    l.-)l),     152 

Artiiur  V.  Homestead  Kirc  Ins. 
Co.,    78    X.    Y.   462,   34 

Am.   Rep.   550    484 

V.  Mitcludl.    10  Smod.  &  M. 

(Miss.)    ;52()    328 

V.  Xcdson.     6      I'.ritish     Co- 

lumliia  .'iUi   468 


TALJLE    OF    CASES. 


dvil 


[Ri'foroiicL'S 

Artz  V.  Robortson,  50  111.  App. 

27   787,  ilOo,  !)37,     9G1 

Ash  V.  Zwietuseli,    15!)  111.  40.-), 
42  N.  E.  854,  affirming  57  111. 

App.   157    5:53,     534 

Ashby  V.   Winston,   34   Mo.   311     3G8 
Ashby    Brick    Co.    v.    Ely,    etc., 
Dry  (Joods  Co.,  151   Ala.  272, 

44"So.  9G    413 

Ashcraft    v.    Powers,    22    Wash. 

440,   Gl    Pac.   IGl    465 

Aslier  V.  Beckner,  41   S.  W.  35, 
19   Ky.    L.   Rep.   521 .  . 

243,  514,     800 
V.  Metcalf,     152     Ky.     632, 

153   S.   W.   987" 9G2 

Asliville     Supply,     etc.,     Co.     v. 
JMachin,  150  N.  C.  744,  64  S. 

E.   887    352,     478 

Ashley  v.  Smith,  8  Kulp.   (Pa.) 

GO  '. 856 

Asliton  Diabarmoiit,  4  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.   425 1219 

Asiatic    Prince.    Tlio.    108    Fed. 

287,   47    C.   C.   A.   325    338 

Asinari  v.  Volkening,  2  Abb.  N. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    454    471 

Askew  y.  Goddard,  17  111.  App. 

377    313,  493,     777 

Askev  V.  Williams,  74  Tex.  294, 

iTS.  W.   1101,  5  L.R.A.   176     718 
Aspinwall  v.  Sabin.  22  Neb.  73,. 
34  N.  W.  72,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 

258 804,    1040,    1064,  1068 

Astley      V.      Younge,      2      Burr. 
(Encr.)  807,  2  Ken.  K.  B.  (pt. 

1.)    536    535 

Astrand  y.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,  24  Misc.  92,"  28  Ciy.  Proc. 

113,  33   N.  Y.  S.  294    1014 

Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Benton, 
42  Kan.  707,  22  Pac.  698 

269.     467 
V.  Brown,  57   Kan.   785.  48 

Pac.    31     632.    ()30.     643 

V.  Johnson.   29  Kan.   218..      670 
y.  Lambert,    32    Okla.    665, 

123    Pac.   428    334,     337 

V.  ilatthews,  174  U.  S.  96, 
19  S.  Ct.  600,  43  U.  S. 

(L.   ed.)    90!)    S53.     8.56 

y.  People,  5  Colo.  60..  11 14,   1158 
y.  Snlliyan,    173    Fed.    456, 

97    C.    C.    A.    1     349 

Atkinson     v.     l^ailey.     107     Ind. 

117,   7   N.  E.   902    917 


are  to  jjages.] 

Atkinson  y.  Detroit  Free  Press, 
146  Mich.  341,  9  N.  W. 

501     135 

V.  (ilenn,  4  Craiicii    (C.  C.) 
134,    2    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

610   132 

V.  Howlett,  11   Ky.  L.  Eep. 

364    518,     57G 

V.  Van  Cleave,  25  Ind.  App. 

508,   57    N.   E.    731     ..      634 
V.  Woodmansee,     68     Kan. 
71,     74     Pac.    640,    64 

L.R.A.   325    854 

Atlanta  News  Pub.  Co.  y.  Med- 
lock,  123  Ga.  719,  51  S.  E. 
756,    3    L.R.A. (N.S.)     1139.. 

118,     122 
Atlanta     R.    &    Power     Co.    y. 
Owens,  119  Ga.  833,  47  S.  E. 

213    1075,  1077 

Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atlan- 
lic,  etc.,  Co.,  147  N.  C.  368, 
15  Ann.  Cas.  363,  61  S.  E. 
185,  125  Am.  St.  Rep.  550,  23 

L.R.A. (N.S.)   223   185,     .327 

Atlantic  &  G.  C.  Canal  &  Okee- 
cliobee  Land  Co.  y.  Kinsman, 

29   Fla.  332,   10  So.  555    1073 

Atlantic  Nat.  Bank  y.  Peregoy- 
Jenkins  Co.,  147  N.  C.  293,  61 

S.   E.   68    248 

Atlantic    Say.    Bank    y.    liette- 
riek.    5    Thomp.    &    C. 

(N.    Y.)     239    785,  1021 

y.  Ililer,    3    Ilun     (N.    Y.) 

209    1033 

Atlee    y.    Bullard.    123    la.    274, 

98   N.   W.  889    986 

Attleboro  Nat.  Bank  y.  Wendell, 
64    Hun    208,    22    Civ.    Proc. 
225,  19  N.  Y.  S.  45    ....537,     538 
Attorney,  Re,  83  N.  Y.  164,  23 

Alb.  L.  J.  129   1311 

30    Pittsb.    Leg.    J.    N.    S. 

(Pa.)    362    114 

Atty.-Gen..   Re,   3  N.  M.   304,   9 

Pac.  249    1151 

Re,    Mart.    &     Y.     (Tonn.) 

285    nr,3 

Attorney's  License,  Re.  21  N.  J. 

L.  34'5 .  .42,  44,       93 

of     Attorney's     Oath,     Re,     20 

Johns.   (N.  Y.)   492   ..    16,  80.       82 
Atty.-Gen.  v.  Abbott,  121   Mich. 
540,  80  N.  W.  372,  47 
L.R.A.   92    1093 


xlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Atty.-Gen.  v.  Albion  Academy  & 

Normal   Inst.,    52    Wis. 

469,   9   N.   W.   391    ... 

1152,  1155 
V.  Barstow,    4    Wis.    507 .  . 

IIGI.  1102 
V.  Berkeley,    2    Jac.    &    W. 

291  183 

V.  Booth.  143  Mich.  89,  lOG 

N.  W.  868  1152 

V.  Boston    Wharf    Co.,     12 

Gray    (Mass.)    553    ...    1154 
V.  Brown,  1  Swanst.  (Eng.) 

204    1132 

V.  Cambridge,        10        Gray 

(Mass.)    247    1155 

V.  Cambridge        Consumers 

Gas    Co.,   L.   R.    4    Ch. 

(Eng.)    71    1132 

V.  Carrington,       G       Beav. 

(Eng.)     454,     63     Rev. 

Rep.   142    694 

V.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R.  Co., 

35     Wis.     425     ..1152, 

1158,    1159,  1160 
V.  Clark.  167  Mass.  201,  45 

X.  E.  183    1152 

V.  Continental  Life  Ins.  Co. 

88   X.   Y.   571,    572    .. 

1147,   1148 
V.  Detroit,     20     Mich.     203 

1152,  1150 
V.  Detroit,    55    Mich.     181. 

20  N.  W.  894    1150 

V.  Detroit,  71   Mich.  92.  98. 

38   X.    W.    714    ..1152,  1153 
V.  Drohan,    109    Mass.    534, 

48   N.   E.  279,   01    Am. 

St.  Rej).  301   1152 

V.  Evart    Booming    Co.,    34 

Mich.    402    1152.  1159 

V.     (iardiner,  117  Mass.  492   1155 
V.  fiarncr,    [  1907)    2    K.    B. 

(Kng.)    4S() 1132 

V.  (;arriM)n,  101  .M:iss.  223  I  154 
V.  Hargrove,   11   Out.   L. 

|{<'I).  530  1133 

V.  Hollv     Siu'Iter     R.     Co., 

1.34    X.    C.    481,    A(>    S. 

E.    959    11 52,   1158 

V.    Illinois  .AgriciiKiirai  Col- 
lege, 85   111.  510    1100 

V.    ]. eat  her     Seller's     Co.,     7 

I'x-av.    (  Kiig.)    157    I  15 

V.   .Mdlif.T,   2(i    Mich.    111.  .     1  157 


are  to  pages.] 

Atty.-Gen.  v.  Xewberry  Library, 
150  111.  229,' 37  N.  E. 
230,    affirming    51     111. 

App.   100    1151,  1154 

V.  Xiagara  Falls  Interna- 
tional Bridge  Co.,  20 
Grant.  Ch.    (U.  C.)    34, 

1  Cartw.  Cas.  813 1138 

V.  X'orth   American   L.  Ins. 

Co..  93  X.  Y.  387   362 

V.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  100 
Mass.  02^  35  N.  E.  252, 
22  L.R.A.  112.  50  Am. 

6  Eng.   R.   Cas.   59    ..    1152 
V.  Ritcher,    183    Mass.    513, 

07  X.  E.  000   1152 

V.  Police  Justice,   41   Mich. 

224,  2  X.  W.  25    1152 

V.  Salem,   103   Mass.   138.. 

1152,  1153 
V.  Sheffield  Gas  Consumers 

Co.,   3   De  G.  M.  &  G. 

(Eng.)    304    1132 

V.  Soule,"28  Mich.   153    ...    1154 
V.  Tarr,   148  Mass.  309,   19 

X.  E.  358.  2  L.R.A.  87   1152 
V.  Tudor  Ice  Co.,  104  Mass. 

239,    0    Am.    Rep.    227 

1152,   1154 
V.  Wallace,      7      B.      Mon. 

(Kv.)     Oil     1101.  1102 

V,  Williams,  140  i\Iass.  329, 

2  X.  E.  80,  3  X.  E.  214, 

54  Am.   Rep.   4GS    1155 

V.  Williams.  174  Mass.  470, 

55  X.  E.  77,  47  L.R.A. 

314   ..1143,  1152,  1153,   1155 
Atwafer  v.  Hadlev,  Svllabi  117. 

2    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    034    ..273.     285 
Atwood  V.   Sicade    (Wash.)    131 

Pac.  850   700,     782 

Aub  V.  Iloflman.   120  App.  Div. 

50,    lot  X.   Y.   S.   913    878 

Aubrev  v.  Aspinall,  Jac.   (Eng.) 

44r .      537 

Audlev  V.  Jester,  148  App.  Div. 

94,   132   X.   Y.   S.   lOGl     277 
V.  Townsend,    49    Misc.    23, 

90  X.  Y.  S.  439.  .    503,     505 
Auge  V.    Filiatranlt,    10   (^)uel)ec 

Super.  Ct.  157   709 

Auirnsta    Mut.    Loan    Assoc,    v. 

.McAiidrew.   03   Ga.   490 561 

Aiikam    V.    /ant/iiiger,    94    ]\1(]. 

■421.   51    All.   93    27 

Auld's   Succ<'ssi(pn.    45    I. a.    Ann. 

2  IS,    1  I    So.    9  IS    783 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


xlix 


[References 

Ault,  Re,  15  Wash.  417,  40  Pac. 

G44    1284,  228;"),  ]331 

Aultman  v.  Dasigs,  50  Mo.  App. 

280    .." 181 

V.  Putter,   81   Misc.   805,  51 

N.   W.   56!)    215 

V.  Waddle,     40     Kan.     105, 

202,  19  Pac.  730  .  .06!),     734 
Aultman,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Adams,  35 

.AIo.  App.  503   600 

V.  Gilbert,   28   S.   C.  303,   5 

S.   E.   800    784 

V.  Goldsmith,  84  lovva,  547, 

51   N.  W.  43    593.     002 

V.  Loring,   70   jVIo.  App.   60 

290,  297,  2!)9,  303.  307,     606 
Austen  v.   Columbia  Lubricants 

Co.,  85  X.  Y.   S.  302 417,     418 

Austin,   Re.,   42   Hun  516,   4  N. 

Y.   St.  Rep.   66G    212 

5  Rawle  (Pa.)  191,  28 
Am.     Dec.     057      ..15, 

1195,    1201,  1204 
V.  Monroe,  4  Lans.   (N.  Y.) 

67     245.     894 

V.  Munroe,  47   X.  Y.  360..    1018 
Austin,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Heiser, 
6   S.  D.  420,  61  X,  W. 

445    157 

Austin's    Ca.se,    5    Ravvfe    (Pa.) 
191,    204,    28    Am.    Dec.    657 

1169,   1194 
Averill    v.    Longfellow,    GO    Me. 

237    1040 

Avery  v.  Averv,  5  Misc.  75,  23 
Civ.    Proc.    a04,    24    X. 

Y.  S.  737    1002 

V.  Jacob,  59  Super.  Ct.  585 
mem.,  15  X.  Y.  S.  504 
242,  245.  552.  555,  504, 

7S0.  800,     802 
T.  Maude,  112  CaL  565,  44 

Pac.  1020   773,     770 

V.  Pima     Countv,     7     Ariz. 

26,  00  Pac. "702  1135 

Avocato  V.  Deir  Ara  (Tex.)  91 

S.  W.  830  502 

Aycinena  v.  Peries,   0   Watts  & 

S.    (Pa.)    243    1035 

Aycock   V.    Baker    (Tex.)    GO   S. 

W.  273    829,  878,     921 

Aydelotte    v.     Bloom,     13     Cal. 
'App.   56,   108    Pac.   877.. 701. 

705,    878,   881,     887 
Ayrault      v.      Cliamberlin,      20 

'Barb.  (X.  Y.)  83  520 

Ayres  v.  Moreliead,  77  Va.  580  502 


are  to  pages.] 

B. 

]?al)b   V.   Stromberir,    14   Pa.   St. 

397    .'. 48!) 

Babbitt  V.  Bumpus.  73  Mich. 
331.  41  X.  W.  417,  10 
Am.  St.  Rep.  585.  .549, 
550,  551,  552,  554,  924, 

927,  932,  938,  946,     947 
V.  Riddell,     1     Grant     Cas. 

(Pa.)    101   832 

Babcock  v.  Arkenburg,  42  Hun 
600  mem.,  4  X.  Y.   St. 

Rep.    467     480 

v.  Hauselman,  5(>  3ilich.  27, 

22   X.  W.  99    1150 

V.  United   R.   Co.,    158   Mo. 
App.  275,  138  S.  W.  53 

370,     37S 
Bach  V.  Ballard,  13  La.  Ann.  487 

355,     510 
Bachman  v.  Goldmark,  48  Super. 

Ct.    (X.   Y.)    549.  .515,     556 
V,  Lawson,    109    U.    S.    059, 
3  S.  Ct.  479    (27  U.  S. 

L.    ed.)    1067    073,     751 

V,  O'Reillv,    14    Colo.    433, 
24  Pac.  546    .  .25,  885, 

!)30,     938 
Backus,  Re,   151  App.  Div.  813, 

136  X.   Y.   S.  484    86 

V.  Burke,  03  Minn.  272.  05 

X.  W.  459  400 

V.  Bvron,    4    ISIich.    535    .  . 

"053,  654.  G57,  060,  662,     663 
V.  Rogers,     8     Johns.      (X. 

Y.)    340    10.     470 

Bacon    v.    Combes,    32    Misc.    704,    05 

X.    Y.    S.    510    800 

V.  Frisbie,  SO  X.  Y.  394,  30 
Am.    Rep.    627,    revers- 
ing  15    Hun    20    .  .164, 
166,  168.  190,  191,  193,     196 
V.  Hart,     1     Black     38,     17 

U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    52 470 

V.  Mitchell,    14    X.   D.    454. 

106      X.     W.      129.      4 

L.R.A.(X.S.)  244.. 375. 

379.  417,  431.  450.  458,     459 

V.  Wavne   Countv,    1    !Mich. 

401   ■. 713 

Badger.  Re.  4  Idaho,  66.  35  Pac. 

839 1 239 

V.  Cellcr.  41  App.  Div.  599, 
58  X.  Y.  S.  653    .  .  402. 

801.     804 
V.  Calhther.    113    111.   062..      911 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Badger  v.  Maver,  8  Misc.  533,  28 

X.  Y.  S.  7U5.  .793,704,     795 
Baer    v.    Chambers,    67     Wash. 
357,    Ann.    Cas.    1913D 

559,  121  Pac.  843    G40 

Baerncopf.  Re,  117   Fed.  975,  9 

Am.   Bankr.  Rep.   133    354 

Baggett    V.    Gradv,    154    N.    C. 

342,  70  S.  E.  618    534 

Bailey,  Re,  4  Civ.  Proc.  (N.  Y.) 

140    996,  1048 

5    Civ.    Pro.     (N.    Y.)     253     800 
GG  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    64.. 

1002,  1048 
31  Hun  (X.  Y.)  608  ..860,  1033 
1  Johns.  Cas.  (X.  Y.)  32  114 
V.  Barclev,  109  Ky.  636.  60 

8.   W.   377    848 

V.  Delaplaine,  1  Sandf.   (X. 

Y.)     11     30 

V.  Devine,    123   Ga.   653.   51 
S.  E.  603,  107  Am.  St. 
Rep.    153    ..  .740,    750,     948 
V.  Kalamazoo  Pub.  Co.,   40 

:\lich.  251    139 

V.  Murphv,  136  X.  Y.  50, 
32  X'.  E.  627,  affirming 
51  Hun  643  mem.,  4  X. 

Y.  8.  579   1048,  1050 

Baillie    v.    Edinburgh    Oil    Gas 

Li-ht  Co.,  3  CI.  &  F.  639 4SS 

Baih-y  v.  Robles,  4  Mort.  X.  8. 

361    191 

Bailv    V.    Birkhofer,    123    Iowa 

59,   98  X.  W.  594    485.     486 

]5ainbrigge.  Re,  11  Beav.  (Eng. ) 

620 537 

Baird  v.  Justice';-;  Court,  11 
Cal.  App.  439,  105  Pac. 

259  1257,  1329 

V.  Ratclifr,   10   Tex.   81    .  .  .      797 
Baker  v.   Aalberir,   183    111.  258. 

55    X.   E.   672    .. ..772,    774 
V.  Arnold.    1    Cai.    (X.   Y.) 

25S    201 

V.  Baker,   9   (lal.   App.   737, 

100   Pac.  892    434 

V.  Baker.  258   111.  41S,    101 

X.  E.  587    mil 

V.  Com.,  10  Bush  (Kv.i 
592.    599    . . 11  OS.    1241, 

1202.  1203 
V.  Cook,    11     Mass.    230     .  . 

979,  1002,  1004,  ln:;o 
V.  Davenport.     First      \at. 
Hank.  77  la.  (i15.  42  X. 
W.  452    277,  285,     298 


are  to  pages.] 

Baker  v.  Davis,  35  la.  184   .... 

V.  Humphrey.     101     U.     S. 

494,  25  U.  8.    (L.  ed.) 

1065 279,   294,   299, 

V.    Jackson,    146    Ala.    688 

mem.,  40  8o.  348    

v.  Jacobson,    183    111.     171, 

55  X.  E.  724    

v.  Knox     Countv.     IS     Ind. 

170    " 714, 

v.  Langley,  3  Ga.  App.  751, 

60   8.   E.   371    

V.  Lexington,  53   8.  W.   16, 

21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  809    .. 

99,  101, 

V.  Loader,  L.  R.  16  Eq.  49, 

42  L.  J.  Ch.  113,  21  W. 

R.  167    

V.  McArthur,  5  Kv.  L.  Rep. 

185    .... '. 

V.  Moore,  29  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

301    636, 

V.  8ecor,  51  Hun  643  mem., 

4  X.  Y.  8.  303  

V.  State.  90  Ga.  153,  15  S. 

E.  788 1192,  1207, 

1210. 
V.  State.  86  Wis.  474,  56  X. 

W.  1088  145, 

V.  Stonebraker,  34  Mo.  175, 

417, 

Baker  Silver  INFin.  Co.  v.  Stein- 

inger,   4   Walk.    (Pa.)    31  .  .  .  . 

Balbi  V.  Duvet.  3  Edw.    (X.  Y.) 

418    245,  538, 

Baldwin  v.  Capitol  Steam  Laun- 
drv   Co.,   109  Minn.  38, 

1 22  X.  W.  460 

v.  Carleton,    15    La.   394.  .  . 

933. 

V.   Clock.    6S    Mich.    201.    35 

X.  W.  904 954,  955, 

V.  Foss,  14  Xeb.  455,  16  X. 

W.  480    424, 

v.  Foss,   16   Xeb.   80,   19   X. 
\V.   490.   10    Xeb.    298, 

20  X.  W.  348 

V.  Latson,  2   Barl).  Ch.    (  X. 


Y 

.)    3 

00 

080.   OSl. 
682, 

Me 

rill 

s 

Tininpli. 

( 

i'enii.) 

i:!_>. 

.■!7ii.   392. 

395.  497, 

Xa 

ion; 

il 

Hedge 

etc.,  Co., 

1 

!     I'( 

Ml 

574. 

39    [T.   8. 

.\ 

I'P- 

]( 

2,    19 

C.   C.   A. 

5- 

5    . 

30G 

515 

175 
772 
715 
039 

104 

537 
592 
637 
525 

1218 
146 
446 
356 
540 

640 
934 
902 
431 

874 

6  S3 

499 

327 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


li 


[References 

Baldwin  v.  School  Citv,  73  Ind. 

340      ■; 708 

Balfour  v.  Davis,  14  Ore.  47,  12 

Pac.    89    773,     775 

Ball,  Re,  55   App.  Div.   284,   GU 

N.  Y.  S.  874  020 

V.  Ilalsell,  101  U.  S.  80.  10 
S.    Ct.    554,    40    U.    S. 

(L.  ed.)    022 728,     751 

V.  Lively,    2    J.    J.    Marsh. 

(Ky.)    182 253 

V.  Poor,  81  Kv.  20,  4  K.  L. 

Rep.    740" 308,     309 

V.  Rowles,    93    (  al.   222,   28 
Pac.    937,    27    Am.    St. 

Rep.    174 530,     050 

V.  Rej'burn,    130    ]\Io.    App. 

540,  118  S.  W.  524 

745,     740 
V.  Roval    Ins.    Co.    129    :\ro. 
App.     34,     107     S.     W. 

1097    009 

V.  State  Bank,  8    Ala.    590, 

42  Am.  Dec.  049 411 

V.  Vason,  50  Ga.  204.. 858,  1023 
Balhmce  v.  Looniis,  22  111.  82..  501 
Ballard   v.   Carr,   48   Cal.   74 .  .  . 

731,     948 
Balsbaugh  v.  Frazer,  19  Pa.  St. 

95... 095,  701,  838,  971,  1010,  1035 
Baltimore    v.     Whittington,     78 

Md.  231,  27  Atl.  984 207 

Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Brown, 
79     Md.     442,    29    Atl. 

524    844.   1023 

V,  Glenn,    28    Md.    323,    92 

Am.  Dec.  088    334,     338 

V.  Fitzpatrick,  36  Md.  619  501 
Baltzell  V.  Nosier,  1  la.  588,  63 

Am.  Dec.  400 440 

Baluss,  Re,  28  Mich.  507 1282 

Bamberger  v.  Oshinskv,  21  ^lisc. 

710,  48  N.  Y.  S.  139 1054 

Banco  De  Sonora  v.  Bankers' 
Mut.  Casualty  Co.,  124  la. 
570,  100  N.  W.  532,  104  Am. 

St.  Rep.  307 335 

Banfill  v.  Leigh,  8  T.  R.   (Eng.) 

571    489 

Bank  Comr's  v.  Buffalo  Bank,  0 

Paige    (X.  Y.)    497.. 417,  420,     421 
Bankers'    Iowa    State    Bank    v. 
Jordan,  111  la.  324,  82  X.  W. 

779    779 

Bankers'  ]\Ioney  Order  Assoc,  v. 
Xacliod,  120  App.  Div.  732, 
105  X.  Y.  S.  773 199,     204 


are  to  pages.] 

ISank  of  China,  etc.,  v.  Morse, 
108  X.  Y.  458,  61  N.  E.  774, 
85  Am.  St.  Rep.  076,  50 
L.R.A.  1,39,  afTirming  44  App. 

Div.  435.  01  X.  Y.  S.  208 339 

Bank  of  Commerce  v.  Hoeher,  88 

-Mo.  37,  57   Am.  Uep.  359....      267 
Baid<s  V.   Burrouylis,   12  (Quebec 

Super.  Ct.   184 861 

V.  Cage,     1     How.     (Miss.) 

293    009,  Oil,     012 

V.  Evans,  10  Smedes  &  M. 
(Miss.)      35,     48     Am. 

Dec.   734    409 

v.  State,  90    Ala.  41,  11  So. 

469    1125 

Banner    v.    D'Aubv,     34     ilisc. 

525,  09  X.  Y.  S."891 598, 

601,  602 
Bannon  v.  P.  Bannon  Sewer 
Pipe  Co.,  130  Kv.  550,  119  S. 

W.    1170    .' 222 

Banta  v.  Xaughton,  44  Hun  022 

mem.,  7  X.  Y.  S.  Rep.  384 ....      542 
Barbee    v.    Aultman,    ^liller    & 

Co.,  102  la.  278,  71  X.  \V.  235   1031 
Barber  v.  Dewes,  101  App.  Div. 
432,  91   X.   Y.  S.   1059, 
affirmed  184  X.  Y.  548, 

76  X.  E.  1089 532 

V.  Hildebrand,  42  Xcb.  400, 

00  X.  W.  594 334 

V.  International  Co.  of 
^Mexico,    73    Conn.    587, 

48  Atl.  758   336 

Barbour  v.  Patterson,  145  Mich. 

459,  108  S.  \V.  973 847 

Barcus  v.  Gates,    130    Fed.    364, 
affirmed    130    Fed.    184, 

09  C.  C.  A.  200 810 

V.  Sherwood,  130  Fed.  184, 
09  C.  C.  A.  200,  affirm- 
ing 130  Fed.  364.  .728, 

708,     904 
Barfield    v.    McCombs,    89    Ga. 

799,  15  S.  E.  660 200,     358 

Barhight  v.  Tammany,  158  Pa. 
St.   545,  28   Atl.   135.   38   Am. 

St.  Rep.  853 034,  041,     043 

Barhorst  v.  Armstrong,  42  Fed. 

2    561 

Barker  v.  Barker,  14  Wis.  131.  .      686 
V.  Braliam,       2       W.       Bl. 
(Eng.)    860,  3  Wils.  C. 

PL    308 523,   525,     531 

V.  Brown    (Ky. )    33    S.    W. 

833 336 


lii 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References 

Barber  v.   Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  3 
Thomp.    &    C.    (X.    Y.) 

329     31.'],     881 

V.  Hibbard,   54    N.   H.   539, 

20  Am.   Rep.   160 718 

V.  St.  Quintin.  12  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)   441.  .  .075,  977, 

9S8,   1029 
V.  Wardle,    2    Myl.    &    K. 

(Eng.)    818 842 

V.  York,  3   La.  Ann.  90...      893 
Barker's   Case,  49  N.   H.   195 .  .      618 
Rarkley  v.  New  Y^ork  Cent.,  etc., 
R.    Co.,    35    App.    Div. 
167,  54  N.  Y.  S.  970.  .      203 
V,  New  York  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  42   App.   Div.  597, 
59  N.  Y.  S.  742.... 254, 

259,     263 
Barklev  Cemetery  Assoc,  v.  Mc- 
Cime.  119  Mo.  App.  349,  95  S. 

\V.  295 417,     432 

Barkraan  v.  Hopkins,    11    Ark. 

157    336 

Barkwell  v.  State.  4  Ind.  179..    1096 
Barlow  v.  Steel,  65  Mo.  611...      494 
Bariiabee    v.    Holmes,     115    la. 
581,  88  N.  W.   1098....  1003, 

1042,  1046 
Barnard,  Re,  145  App.  Div.  910, 

129    N.    Y.   S.   939 

1301,  1303 
Re,  151  App.  Div.  580,  136 

N.  Y.  S.  1S5 1259,  1320 

V.  Brower,  110  N.  Y.  77,  17 

N.  E.  376 911 

V.  Dagf^ott,  68  Ind.  305 460 

Barnes,  Rv,    (Cal.)  16  Pac.  S96 

1234,  1306 
V.  Addv.  L.  R.  9  Cb.  244, 
43"  J.,  .r.  Cli.  513,  30  L. 

T.  N.  S.  4 524 

V.  Profilet,  5   La.  Ann.    117 

416,     454 
V.  Harris,  7  Ciisb.    (Mass.) 
576,    54    Am.    Dec.    734 

159,   172,     173 
V.  Lyons,  187    Fed.  881.  110 

C.  C.  A.  15 1288, 

1294,   1296 
V.  McCartby,    (Tex.)    132  S. 

W.    85 274 

V.  Tavlor,  30  \.  J.  Ecj.  467 

!I95,    1048,    1050,    1069 
Barneslev      v,       I'owcll,      Aiiihl. 

(Kiig.)     102    719,     720 


are  to  pages.] 

Barnett    v.    Davenport,    40    111. 

App.     57 

v.  Kilbournc,  3  Cal.  327... 
V.  State,  89  Ala.  165,  7  So. 

414     627, 

Barney  v.  Fuller,  133  N.  Y.  605, 

30  N.  E.  1007 

Barngrover  v.  Pettigrew,  128  la. 
533,  104  N.  W.  904,  111  Am. 
St.  Rep.  206,  2  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

260   670,  758,  759, 

Baron  v.   Colien,    62    How.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)   367 

Barr  v.  Moore,  87  Pa.  St.  385, 

30  Am.  Rep.  367 

V.  Rader,   31    Ore.    225.    49 

Pac.    962 392. 

Barratt  v.  C4rimes,  10  Kan.  App. 


18],  63  Pac.  27'. 


Barrett  v.  Ball,  101    Mo.    App. 

288,  73  S.  W.  805.. 273, 

275.  277. 

V.  Bamber,   9   Pbila.    (Pa.) 

202,    31    Log.    Int.    164 

284,  296.  303. 

V.  Bowers,   87   Me.   185,   32 

Atl.    871 

V.  Tbird  Ave.  R.  Co.,  45  N. 

Y.    628 384,  408, 

V.  Towne.  3  96  Mass.  487.  82 
N.    E.    698,    13    L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    643 

V.  Waters,      19      111.     App. 

652    

Barrimore  v.  McFeely,    32    La. 

Ann.  1179    

Barrow  v.  Jones,  1  J.  J.  Marsb 

(Ky.)    471    

Barrows  v.  Downs.  9  R.  I.  446, 

11  Am.  Ren.  283 33li, 

Barr's    Succession,    8    La.    Ann. 

458    

Bariy  v.  Capen,  151  Mass.  99. 
23  N.  E.  725,  6  L.R.A. 

80S  750. 

V.  Coville,  53  Hun,  620.  7 
N.  Y.  S.  36. . .. . ..166, 

V.  Guild,  126  111.  439.  18  N. 

E.  759,  2  L.R.A.  334.. 

V.  Snovvden,  106  Fed.  571 

77(i, 

V.  Tbird  Ave.,  R.  Co..  87 

App.  Div.  543,  84  N. 

Y.  S.  830.. .860,  1031, 

V.  W  bitiiey,  1  Code  Rep.  N. 

S.  (N.  Y.)  101 


773 

561 

628 
586 

761 

481 
139 
393 

851 

285 

304 
858 
458 

247 
310 
858 
562 
337 
368 

751 
181 

774 
779 

1054 
278 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Rcferencos 

Barry  v.  Wliitiifv.  ?>  Sainlf.    (X. 

Y.)    cm    00!) 

Bartell   v.   State,   lOii   Wis.  342, 

82  N.  W.  142    1122 

Barthell  v.  Chicaoo  M.  &  St.  P. 
R.   Co.,    1.38   Iowa   OSS, 

110  N.  W.  81.3 004, 

907,  1000.  1077.  lOSO,  1084 

V.  Roderick,  34  Ta.  r^M 502 

Bartholomew    v.    Langsdale,    35 

Ind.   278 709 

Bartlett  v.   Brown,   0   R.   I.   37, 
75  Am.  Dec.  075.  .  .033. 

0.35.     037 
V.  Brunson,  115  Ga.  459,  41 

S.  E.  001 1124 

V.  Biinn,    50    Hun,   507,  10 

N.  Y.  S.  210 208 

V.  Christhilf,    69    Md.    219, 

14  Atl.  518 535 

V.  Odd-Follows'  Sav.  Bank, 
79  Cal.  218,  21  Pac. 
743,    12    Am.    St.    Rep. 

139   748,  794,  797. 

870,  958,     959 
V.  Sultan     of     Turkey,     19 

Fed.  346    .' 408 

Bartlett  v.  Wheeler,  31  La.  Ann. 

540      406 

Bartlev  v.  State,  53  Neb.  310,  75 

N.    W.    744    1114,   1115 

Bartolett   v.   Achey,   38   Pa.   St. 

273     302 

Bartoletti    v.    Hoerncr,    154    111. 

App.     330 333 

Barton  v.   Dickens,  48    Pa.    St. 

518    594 

V.  Hunter,  59  Mo.  App.  010 

384.  405,     408 
V.  Whipple,   03   N.   H.   013, 

3  Atl.  922 289 

Bartram    v.   Ohio,   etc.,    R.    Co., 

141  Kv.  100,  132  S.  W.  188..      857 

Bass  V.  Fontleroy,  11  Te\.  098.  .      150 

Bassford  v.  Johnson.  172  N.  Y. 

488.      05      X.     E.     200, 

modifying  71  App.  Div. 

017,   76  N.  Y.  S.   1000 

738,     704 
V.  Swift,    17   Misc.   149.   39 

X.  Y.  S.  337. .378,  710,  -711 
Basye  v.  State,  45  X"^eb.  261.  03 

X^  W.  811 175,     200 

Bates  V.  Bates,  06  ]\Iinn.  131,  68 

X.   W.    845 390 

V.  Johnson     Co.,     79    IMinn. 

354,  82  N,  W.  649 ... .      267 


arc  to  pages.] 

Bates  V.  Pilling.  0  B.  &  C.  38.  13 
E.   C.    L.    104,   9   Dowl. 

&  R.  44 526 

V.  Rosenberg,   121    X.  Y.   S. 

335 270 

V.  Scabury,  1   Sprague,  433, 
2   Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  1,   104 

361,  383,  387,  395,     398 
V.  Visher.  2  Cal.  355.  .  .489,     491 
Batesville    Bank    v.    Maxcy,    76 

Ark.  472,  88  S.  W.  968.  .  .368,     378 
Bathgate  v.   Haskins,   59   X".   Y. 

533    250,  870,     959 

Batt  V.  Vaisev,   1   Price    (Eng. ) 

116    ": 130 

Batterson    v.    Osborne,    03    Hun 
033   mem..  18  N.  Y.  S.  431.  . 

704,     707 
Battlev  V.  Faulkner,  3  B.  &  Aid. 

288,"  5  E.  C.  L.  288 588 

Batty  V.  Font,  54  Ind.  482 583 

Bauder,  Re,   128  App.  Div.  340, 

112  X\  Y.  S.  761 1187,  1240 

Bauernschmidt         v.         Bauern- 
schmidt,  101  Md.  148,  00  Atl. 

437    841 

Bauer's  Estate,  79  Cal.  304,  21 

Pac.  759    183 

Baugh  V.  Cradocke,  1  M.  &  Rob. 

182    183 

Baum,  Re,  10  Mont.  223,  25  Pac. 

99    1180,   1307,  1311 

Re,    55    Hun    Oil    mem.,    8 

N.  Y.  S.  771 15,  17,  1166 

Bauman  v.  Eschallier,  184  Fed. 

710,  107  C.  C.  A.  44 298,     308 

Baur  V.  Betz,  1  How.  Pr.   (X.S.) 
344,  7  Civ.  Proc.  233.  afllrmed 

99   X\   Y.   672 537,   1190 

Baxter,   Re,   154   Fed.  22,   83   C. 

C.  A.  100 1009,  1012,  1022,  1035 

1039,   1042,  1045 

V.  Bates,  09  Ga.  587 845 

V.  Billings,  83  Fed.  790,  28 
C.  C.  A.  85. ..801,  802, 

834,   879,   910,     914 
V.  Connor.     119    App.    Div. 
450,    104  X\   Y.   S.   327 

1048,  1003,  1005,  1085 
V.  Lowe,  93  Fed.  358,  35  C. 

C.  A.   314 949 

Bay    V.    Trusdell,    92    Mo.    App. 

377  .  .  .180,  384,  400,  406,  408,     777 
Bayard     v.     McLane,     3    Harr. 

(Del.)    139   869,     910 

Bayles,  Re,   156  App.  Div.   663, 

141  N.  Y.  S.  1052 1244 


liv 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


[r>ofereiices  arc  to  pages.] 


Bavlov    V.     Auckland.     1     Excli. 

(Eng.)    1 442.  4(57,     517 

Bavlies  v.   Polk   County,  58   la. 

357.  12  X.  W.  311..  .■ 810 

Bavlis  V.  \Yatkins,  10  Jur.  X.  S. 

(Eng.)    114   90S 

Bavlor     v.     Morrison,     2     Bibb. 

(Ky.)    103    801 

Beach  v.  Gregory,  2  Abb.  Pr.  (X. 


P>eau(lin  v.  ^Montreal,  20  Quebec 

Super.  Ct.  32    

Beaulieu  v.  Beaulicu.  114  Minn. 

511.   131   X.  W.  481    

Beaumont     v.     Dean,     4     Dowl. 

(Eng.)    .354    

Becher,  Pve,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  115.. 

Re.    19    Phi  la.    29.    45    Leg. 

Int.  94 


Y.)   20G,  3  Abb.  Pr.  78 245       Beck,    Pvc,    92    Fed.    889,    1    Am. 


Beadleston     v.     Beadleston,     50 

llun  603  mem.,  2  X.  Y.  S.  815  1324 
Beagles   v.    Robertson,    135    "SIo. 
App.    306,    115    S.    W.     1042 
375,   376,   386,    723.   728,   741, 

747,  756.  764.  838.  839,  919 

Beal,  Re.   5   Mo.   App.  583    1324 

V.  Robeson,    30    X.    C.    276 

634,  038 
Beal  etc..  Dry  Goods  Co.  v.  Bar- 
ton. 80  Ark.  326,  97  S. 

W.  58    314,     404 

Beale  v.  Barnett,  04  S.  W.  838, 
23    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1118 


Bankr.    Rep.    535     

V.  Avondino,    20    Tex.    Civ. 

App.  330,  50  S.  W.  207 

269. 

V.  Bellamy,    93    X.    C.    129 

450. 

V.  Martin.  2  McMul.  L.   (S. 

C.)    260    

Becker  y.   Sliaw,   120  Ga.   1003, 

48   S.   E.   408    

Beckitt  V.  Wragg.  1  Ch.  Chamb. 

(Ont.)     5     

Beekley   y.   Xewcomb,   24   X.   IT. 
359  ' 417,  427. 


274,  276,     278       Beckner   y.   Com.,    126   Ky.   318. 


V.  Swasey,    106    Me.    35,   20 
Ann.^  Cas.  396,   75   Atl. 

134    451,     561 

Beall  y.  Chatham,  100  Tex.  371, 

99  S.  \V.  1116 302 

V.  Territory,  1  X.  M.  507 .  .      328 
Beals  V.  Wagener,  47  Minn.  489, 

50  X.  AV.  535   723 

Bean  v.  Mather,  1  Daly   (X.  Y.) 

440    '. 445 


103  S.  W.  378,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

70S    '.  ..    1240, 

Beckwith,  Re,  9  X.  Y.  667    

y.  Benner,    6    C.    &    P.    081. 

25  E.  C.  L.  595   

Beddo  V.  U.  S..  28  Ct.  CI.  69.  . 

Bedle,   Re,    (X.  J.)    87   Atl.   100 

1218. 

Beebe  y.  George  11.  Beebe  Co.,  04 

X.  J.  L.  497,  46  Atl.  168   .... 


V.  Quimby,  5  X.  H.  94.. 29,     175       Beech  y.  Canaan.  14  Vt.  485    . 


Beard    y.    .Morgan,    71    111.   App 

564    709.     887 

y.  Wester  man,   32    Ohio   St. 

29    410 

Beardslec   y.    Boyd,   37    .Mo.    ISO 

598,     601 
Beardslev  y.  Pope,  88  TTun  500, 
■34  X.  Y.  S.  840,  reyers- 
ing  11   Misc.  117,  32  X. 

Y.    S.    92()     495 

V.  Root.    11    Jolms.    464.    6 
Am.    Dec.    386    .  .    296. 

298.  303.      597 
licatlv    V.    Davis,    9    Ciil     (  .Md.) 

211     327. 

V.   Ilaldiin.   10  Ont.  278    .  .  . 
y.   Hamilton,  127  I'a.  St.  71. 

17    Atl.    755    

V.  Tete,    !>    La.    Ann.    129.  , 
]',<»\i   V.    Drew,   15    l/!i.   .\ini.    UW 

376,     378 


;!29 
:!{I7 


:!(;s 

4(10 


Beecher   y.    Anderson.    45    IMicli. 

543 1115. 

V.  Henderson,   4    Ala.   App. 

543,  583,  805    

Beekman    y.    Platner,    17^    Barb. 

(X.   Y.)    550    

Beem  y.  Kimberly,  72  Wis.  343, 

39  X.  W.  542   ! 

Beeman  y.  Kitzman,  124  Iowa 

80,  99  X.  W.  171  

I'.eene  y.  State,  22  Ark.  149 

1168,  1192,  1194,  1195,  1106, 

1294,  1302. 

I'eers   V.    lleiulricksnn,   45    X.   A'. 

lH't'),  modifying  0    Robt. 

53    3S4,    396,   397, 

40!), 

y.  Washbond,  80  App.   Div. 

582.  83  X.  Y.   S.  993.  . 

Recson   v.    i'.eeson.  9   Pa.  St.  279 

165,  208,  216, 


800 

907 

131 
721 

788 

818 

476 
531 
325 
224 
126 
431 

1272 
246 

210 
830 

1220 

400 
1005 

1110 

430 

930 

585 

480 

1328 

501 
684 
217 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Iv 


[References 

Bepps,   Ex   p..   07   N.   Y.   120    .  .        85 
Behrens    v.    Dignowittv,    4    Tex. 

Civ.   App.   201.   2.3   S.  W.   288     778 
Beidler     v.     Eeirnaert,     25     Til. 

App.   422    0.3!),     048 

Beiliofer  v.  Loeffert,   15!)  Pa.  St. 

.374,  28  Atl.  210   043 

Beinert  v.  Tivoli.  02  IMisc.  010, 

116  N.  Y.   S.  4    342 

Beistle  v.  McConnell,  141  Mich. 
403.  104  N.  \V.  729,  12  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  505    528 

Belch    V.    Scliott.    (Mo.)    157    S. 

W.  058   1043 

Beklen  v.  Butchers'  Union 
Slaughterhouse     Co.,     38     La. 

Ann.  392 900 

Belding    v.    Smythe,    138    ]\Iass. 

530    ■ 653,     007 

Belfield  v.  Booth,  03  Conn.  299, 

27  Atl.  585   310 

Beliveau  v.  Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co., 
08  N.  IT.  225,  40  Atl.  734,  73 
Am.   St.    Rep.   577,   44    L.R.A. 

167    241,     389 

Bell  V.  Atlantic  Citv  R.  Co..  202 

Pa.  St.  178,  51  Atl.  600     634 
V.  Bell,   12   Pa.   St.   235    .  . 

328      332 
V.  Farwell,  189  111.  414,  59 
X.  E.  955,  affirming  89 
111.    App.    038     .  .    352, 

430,  432,     433 
V.  Gate,  1  Taunt.  (Eng.)  162 
V.  Kwilccki,  11  Ga.  App.  9, 

74  8.  E.  444    391,     395 

V.  McLeran,  3  Vt.  185    873 

V.  ]\Iason.    10   Vt.   509    528 

V.  Reel,  8  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  346     847 
V.  Shaffer,  154  Ind.  413.  56  . 

N.  E.  217    848 

V.  Smith,   28    111.    App.    181 

779,     892 
V.  Staacke,     159     Cal.     193, 

115   Pac.  221    204 

V.  Welch,  38  Ark.  139.  .910, 

933,     934 
V.  Wood,  7  Kv.  L.  Rep.  516   1046 

Bella,  The,  91   Fed.  540   1079 

Belle  Citv  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Kemp,  27 

Wash. ■'ill,  67  Pac.  580.. 241,     266 
Bellis,    Re,    38    How.    Pr.    79,    3 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  1.274    .  .      180 
Re,  3  Ben.  386.  3  Fed.  Cas. 

No.  1,274   215 

Bellison  v.  Apland,  115  la.  599, 

89  N.  W.  22    1095 


are  to  pages.] 

Belt  V.  Wilson,   6  ,T.  J.   Marsh. 
(Ky.)    495,    22    Am.    Dec.    88 

424,  4.35,     438 
Beltzhoover     v.     Blackstock,     3 

Watts  20,  27  Am.  Dee.  330..      190 
Beltzhoover's      Claim,      10      Op. 

Attv.-Gen.   267    ... 1138,   1140 

Bender     v.     McDowell,     46     La. 

Ann.  393,  15  So.  21    ..   416,     426 
Bendheim   v.   Pickford,   31   App. 

Cas.    (D.  C.)    488    995,  1081 

Benedict  v.  Harlow,  5  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    347    1040- 

v.  Smith.  10  Paige   (N.  Y.) 
126     .  .     250,    252,    370, 

378,    395,    390,     40!) 
V.  State.    44    Ohio    St.    079, 
11    N.    E.    125    ..     157, 

158,     174 
V.  Stuart,  23  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

420    056 

V.  Wilhoite,     (Ky.)     SO     S. 

W.  1155    384.  388.     408: 

Beneville    v.    Whalen,    14    Dalv 

508,  2  N.  Y.  S.  20 \      884 

Benjamin  v.  Coventry.  19  Wend. 

(N.  Y.)   353    222 

v.  Benjamin,    17    Conn.    110 

1053.  1056 
Benner  v.  Edmonds,  12  Ont.  Pr. 

9    402 

Rennet  v.  Vade,   2   Atk.    (Eng.) 

328    537 

Bennett  v.  Connelly,  103  111.  50 

943,     900^ 
v.  Donovan,    83    App.    Div. 
95,  82  N.  Y.  506. .723, 

734.  735.  739,     874 
V.  Eddv,   120  Mich.  300,  79 

N.'W.  481   040 

V.  Phillips,   57    la.    174,    10 
N.  W.  328   .  .   355,  401, 

412,     578- 
v.  State,  02  Ark.  516,  36  S. 

W.    947    1117 

Bennett's  Estate,  13  Phila.  331, 

37  Leg.  Int.  105   197.     211 

Penning  v.  Rielle,  6  Montreal  G. 

B.  365    534 

Bennvfield    v.    Com.,    17    S.    W. 

271.  13  Kv.  L.  Rep.  446   1107 

Bensel.  Re,  68  Misc.  70,   124  N. 

Y.   S.   726    745,  981,     982 

Benson  v.  Carr,  73  Me.  78   ....      412 
v.  Whitfield,    4    McCord    L. 

(S.  C.)   149   545 

Bent  V.   Lewis,   15   Mo.  App.  40     685 


Ivi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Bent    V.    Lipscomli.    4o    W.    Va. 
1S3,    31    R.    E.    907,    72 

Am.  St.  Rep.  81.5    

838.  830,  mri.   1031,  1052 

V.  Priest,   SG  Mo.  475    G8G 

V.  Priest.    10  Mo.  App.  543 

312,     314 
Eentinck    v.    Franklin,    38    Tex. 

458    663 

Jientlev  v.  Maryland  Fidelity 
etc./ Co.,  75  N.  J.  L.  828.  l"5 
Ann.  Cas.  1178,  69  Atl.  202, 
127  Am.  St.  Rep.  837   .  .   897, 

704.  700,  710,  711,     712 
Benton  v.  Benton,  106  La.  99,  30 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Bettens  v.  Fowler,  51  Super,  ft. 

(N.  Y.)   IGG   938, 

Betts  V.   Betts,   4  Abb.  N.   Cas. 

317 

V.  Cl)apnian,    7    X.    Bruns. 

450    

V.  Mongin,    15   La.  Ann.  52 
Betz  V.   Valer,   15   Phila.    (Pa.) 

324,    39    Leg.    Int.    100     

Bevan,  Re,  33  Beav.   (Eng.)   439 

V.  Waters,  M.  &  M.    (Eng.) 

235,  22  E.  C.  L.  301.  . 

Beverly  v.  Stephens,  17  Ala.  701 

489, 


So    IS?'  '       '  '^04       Bevington  v.  Woodbury  County, 

V.  Craig,  2  Mo.'i98'::"564     "  ^0'    ^^-    424,    78    N.    W.    222 


587,     9G5 
V.  Henry,  2  Coldw.   (Tenn.) 

83    329,  GG3,  1307 

Berg    V.    .McLaffertv,     (Pa.)     12 

Atl.    400    ' 493 

Berger  v.  Neville,  117   111.  App. 

72    848 

Bergholtz  v.   Itbaca   St.  R.   Co., 

27  :\risc.  176,  29  Civ.  Pro.  291, 

58  X.  Y.  S.  388   249 

Bergniann    v.    Manes,    141    App. 

Div.  102,  125  N.  Y.  S.  973.  .  .      179 
Bertrstrasser  v.  People,   134   111. 

App.  609    HOG 

Px-rcrstrom,    Re,    131    App.    Div. 

701,   116   X.  Y.   S.   245 1037 

I?erko\vitz.    Re,    22    Am.    Bankr. 

Rep.  236    824 

Berks  v.  Hotcbkiss,  82  Hun  27, 


1113,  1118,  1124, 
Bevins  v.  Albro,  86  Hun  590,  33 

X.  Y.  S.  1079   

Bexar  Building  &  Loan  Assoc,  v. 

Lockwood,  54  S.  W.  253    

B.  F.  Roden  Grocery  Co.  v.  ]\Ic- 

Afee.  IGO  Ala.  564,  49  So.  402 

38  G. 

Bialy   v.    Bialy,    167    :dieb.   550, 

Ann.   Cas.    1913A  800,  133  X. 

W.  496   

Bibb   V.    Smith,   1    Dana    (Ky.) 

242     273,    275,    740, 

Bick   V.    Overfelt,    88   Mo.   App. 

140    

Bickford  v.  Ellis,  50  :\Ie.  121  .  . 

992,  1030,  1032,  1033,  1036, 
1048, 


)G!) 

Bioknell     v.     Dorion,     16     Pick 
(Mass.)    478    523,  524, 


31  X.  Y.  S.  16   611       ISickley,    I'^x    p.,    16    Oliio    Dec. 

Berner,   Re.  4  Am.  Bankr.  Rep. 

383 .      628 

Berrie  v.  Atkinson,  114  Ga.  708, 

40  S.  E.  70S    540,     541       Biddle    v.    Pierce,    13    Ind.   App. 

Berrien  v.  McLane,  HofTm.    (X.  230,  41   X.  E.  475    

Y.)   421   ..   274,  283,  284.  280,     GSl       Bicbinger  v.  Taylor,   G4  Mo.  63 

Berry  v.  Davis,  34  la.  594.  .92(i,  I'.iomel    v.    State,    71    Wis.    444, 

927,     020  .".7  X.  W.  244   ..1100,   1102, 

V.  :\Iullen,  Ir.  R.  5  Eq.  3GS  1110. 

402,     404       Bieiiveiin  v.  Factors'  &  Traders' 

Bcrtbold    v.    Fox,    21    ^^linn.    51      250  Ins  Co.,  33  La.  Ann.  200 

lieasie  v.  Xortbern  Pac.  Iv.  Co.. 
14  X.  D.  614,  105  X.  W.  03G 


Bieree  v.  Red  P.lull'  Il(>t(d  Co.,  31 
Cal.    1()()    


.'!2G,      S;!2        r.igrlow    v.    .Sliecban,     Kil     Midi. 


li.-tliaiiy      .M.      E.      (  Inncli      v. 

BrookH,    143    App.    Div.    685. 

12H   .\.   Y.  S.  250    

Hctbel     (Imr.-b     v.    Carmack,    2 

Md.  (  h.  ]»:;  


450 


GG7.  12G  \.  W.  707,  17  De- 
troit Leg.  X.  422  lOlG, 

r.iggers.  Re  24  Ok  la.  S^2.  104 
i'ac.  1083,  25  L.lI.A.lX.S.) 
022  


940 

878 

538 

857 

417 

974 

331 
492 

1125 
993 
268 

479 

907 
747 
685 

1050 

1272 

530 

401 
561 

1112 

11 

2  GO 

1017 

1282 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ivii 


[References 

Biggs,  Ex.  p.  (14  X.  C.  202.. 
]UU),  IKkS,  1197,  1202, 
1203,   120.5,    1:52.),   1328, 

1329,   1330 
Ex.  p.  52  Ore.  433,  97  Pac. 

713     1209,   1270 

Bigham  v.  Kistler,  114  Ga.  453, 

40  S.  E.   303    ..415,  419,     420 

Bigler  v.  Revlier,  43  Ind.  112 

156,     190 
V.  Toy,    (58    la.    687,    28    X. 
W.   17    ..383,  391,  395, 

407,     494 

Bignall,   Re  9   Fed.   385    783 

Bignol    V.    Bignol,    11    Ves.    Jr. 

(Eng.)     328    720 

Biles's  Appeal,  119  Pa.  St.  105, 

12   Atl.   83;!    848 

Biling    V.    Pilcher,    7     B.    INIon. 

(Ky.)    458,   46  Am.   Dec.  523     907 
Bilington,  Re  156  App.  Div.  63 

141   N.   Y.   S.   16    1247 

Billings  V.  Rattoon,  5  Johns.  Ch. 

(X.  Y.)    189   .. 470 

Billingsley    v.    Maas,     93     Wis. 

176,  67"  X.  W.  49    638 

Billington     v.     Poitevent,     etc.. 
Lumber  Co..  52  La.  Ann.  1397, 

27  So.  725   781,     784 

Bills    V.    Polk,    4    Lea     (Tenn.) 

494    801,  944,  947 

Bingham  v.  Guthrie,  19  Pa.  St. 

418    379,     489 

V.  Salene,  15  Ore.  208,  14 
Pac.  523.  3  Am.  St. 
Rep.    152     ..274,    276, 

283,     765 
V.  Sheldon,    101    App.    Div. 
48,  91   X.  Y.   S.  917.. 

274,  277,     283 
V.  Spruill,  97  Til.  App.  374 

607,   780,   783,     790 
V.  Walk.    128   Ind.    164,   27 

X".   E.  483    175,     178 

V.  Winona  County,  6  ]\Iinn. 

130     ". 477.     485 

Birckhead  y.  DeForest,  120  Fed. 

645,  57   C.  C.  A.   107    600 

Bird   V.   Breedloye,   24   Ga.   623 

27.     109 
V.  Gilbert.  40  Kan.  469,  19 

Pac.  924    1328 

V.  Kendall.  62  S.  C.  178,  40 

S.  E.   142    773.     774 

V.  State.    77    Wis.    276,    45 

X.    W.    1126     1110 

V.  U.   S.  45   Fed.   110    1136 


are  to  pages.] 

Bird    V.    Wes.sels,    119    N.   Y.    S. 

329    539,     545 

Birkbeck    v.    Stafford,    14    Abb. 
Pr.    285,    23    How.    Pr.    236 

523,     545 

Birmingham    Loan,    etc.,    Co.   v. 

Aiiniston      First      Xat. 

Bank.  100  Ala.  249,  13 

So.     945,    46    Am.    St. 

Rep.    45    148,    150,     151 

Birmingham     R.     etc.,     Co.     v. 
Wildman.  119  Ala.  547, 

24  So.  548   150 

Birnap  v.  Marsh,  13  111.  535   .  .      530 
Birt   V.    Burt,    36    L.   T.   X.    S. 

(Eng.)    943    559 

Bishoff  y.  Com.,  123  Ky.  340,  96 

S.  W.  538        193,  195,     331 

Bishop    y.    Bishop,    30    Abb.    X. 
Cas.   290,   24   X.   Y.    S. 

888     207,     438 

y.  Garcia,    14    Abb.    Pr.   X". 

S.    (X.   Y.)    69    1004 

y.  Hilliard,  227  111.  382.  81 

N.   E.   403    327,     332 

y.  Latimer,    4    L.    T.   X.   S. 

(Eng.)    775    138,     140 

y.  United  Rys.  Co.,  165  Mo. 
App.    220,    147    S.    W. 

170   1010 

Bissell   V.    Zorn.    122   Mo.   A]ip. 
688,  99   S.  W.  458.. 242,  709, 

712,   772,   781.   793,     890 
Bittiner   y.    Goldman,    20    Misc. 

330.    45    X.    Y.    S.    953     733 
V.  Gomprecht.  28  Misc.  218, 
29  Ciy.  Proc.  300,  58  X. 

Y.    S.    1011    807,     910 

Black    y.    Black,    32    X.    J.    Eq. 

74    1081 

V.  Buckingham,    174    Mass. 

102,  54  X.  E.  494 640 

V.  Drake,  2  Colo.  330.. 376, 

391,   393,   ,394,    398,        500 
y.  Ilersch,    18   Ind.   342.    81 

Am.  Dec.  362    .  .  .    598,     601 
y.  Rogers,  75  Mo.  441.. 384, 

400.  404,     405 
Blackburn    y.    Clarke,    85   Tenn. 

506,  3  S.  W.  505    987 

v.  Crawford.    3    Wall.    175, 
18   U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    186 

160,  210,     223 
y.  Webb.    38    Kan.    60S,    17 
Pac.    404     ..229,    230, 

232,   700.     707 


Iviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Blaikie  v.  Post,   137   App.  Div. 

64S,  122  N.  Y.  S.   292    ..740, 

742,   743.   744,   747,   748,   883,     019 

Blair  v.  Blaiiton,  54  S.  W.  321, 

writ  of  error  dismissed 

93   Tex.   348,  55   S.   W. 

321      839 

V.  Bromley,  H  Jw.  (Eng. ) 

617,  iC  L.  J.  Cli.  495  520 
V.  Columbian  Fireproofing 
Co.,  191  Mass.  333,  77 
N.  E.  762  ..229,  701, 
703,  705,  706,  707,  708, 
781,  786,  787,  788,  892,  954 
V.  Columbian  Fireproofing 
Co.,  193  Mass.  540,   79 

N.  E.  779    955 

V.  Harrison,  57  Fed.  257,  IS 
U.  S.  App.  27,  6  C.  C. 
A.     326,     affirming     51 

Fed.   693    841,  1022 

V.  Lanning,  61  Ind.  499  ..  1030 
V.  Marve,  80  Va.  485...  1149 
V.  State,    72    Neb.   501,    101 

N.  W.  17    1107,  1112 

Blaisdell    v.    Abern,    144    Mass. 
393,    11    N.    E.    681,    59    Am. 

Rep.  99    667,  668,     730 

Blake,  Re,  1   Blackf.    (Ind.)    483       82 
Re,  3  El.  &  El.  40,  107  E.  C. 

L.    40    1221,    1259,  1268 

V.  AndrevvS,     56     Hun     641 

mem.,    9   N.   Y.    S.   363     964 
V.  Clary,    83    Me.    154,    21 

Ati.   841    267 

V.  Corcoran,  211  Mass.  40(5, 

97   N.   E.   102    S3S,     988 

V.  Elizabetb,  2  N.  J.  L. 
328.    3    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

1,495     779 

Blakey  v.  New  York  L.  Ins.  Co., 

28  Ind.  App.  428,  63  N.  E.  47 

734, 

Blanc  V.  Forgav,  5  La.  Ann.  695 


889 
332 


Blanclianl    v.    Bristol.    TOO    Vn. 
469,      41      S.      E.      948 

1(11,      103 
V.  State,  30  Fla.  223,  1  1  So. 

785,  18  I..K.A.  409.  .9(i,        97 
Bland,  etc.,  Conntv  Juilge  Case, 

33   Cratt.    (Va.)    443    Hi,        17 

BianUcrdiaker    v.    IJank    of   Com- 

mcrce,   H5    ln<l.   459    KISO 

Blaiikeri'iliip  v.  Ciiwling,  .31   .\|)|p. 

(as.    (  1).   (J.I    62()    .  .536,    !)ll),      'MW 


are  to  pages.] 

Blanton   v.  King,   73   ]\Io.   App. 

148     798,     79;> 

Blaslifield  v.   Empire  State  Tel. 

etc.,  Co.,  18  N.  Y.  S.  250 681 

Bleakley,   Re,   5   Paige    (N.  Y.  | 
311   ..363,  371,  611.  624,  654, 

710,  862,  1218.  125.3 
Blessing  v.  Dodds,  53  Ind.  95  340 
Blevins  v.  State,  68  Ala.  92  ..  1117 
Bliglit  V.  Fisher,  Pet.  C.  C.  41, 

3   Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,  542 10 

Bliss,  Re.  9  Johns.  (N.  Y.  )   347 

114,      115 
V.  Molter,  58  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)     112    131 

V.  Otis,  1  Den.   (N.  Y.)   656 

541,     542 
V.     Pricbard,     67     Mo.     181 

302,     306 
V.   Seeley,    191   111.   461,   61 

N.    E.    524    848 

V.  Wyman,  7  Cal.  257    639 

Blizzard  v.  Applegate,  61  Ind. 
368     .. .880,    935,    937, 

938.     942 
V.   Applegate,    77    Ind.   516 

869.   917,   961,     964 
V.  Brown,  152  Wis.  160,  139 

N.    W.    737     528 

Bloch    V.    Blocb.    136    App.    Div. 

770,  121  N.  Y.  S.  475   ..1048,  1072 
Block    V.   Mevers,   33    La.   Ann. 

776        " 6.3S 

Blodget  V.  Conklin,  9  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)   442   ...440,  444.  445,     495 
Bloomfield    v.     Nevitt,     (Colo.) 

131    Pac.   801    463,     544 

Bloomington  v.  Heiland,  67   HI. 

278 361 

Bloor,  Re,  21  Mont.  49,  52  Pae. 

779     1289,  1296 

Blount  V.  Kimpton,  155  ^lass. 
378,  29  N.  E.  590,  31 
All).  St.  Rep.  554  .  .164, 

208,     225 
Coinitv     Bank     v.     Smith, 
(Tenn.)    48   S.  W.  296 

702,     842 
Rliick  V.  (ialswortliv,  7  diir.  N. 

S.  !tl    ' 198 

Blini.icll  V.  I'.IuikIcII,  5  1!.  &   Aid. 
r>:\:\.  7  \:.  (*.  I..  I8i.  i  Dowi.  & 

I!.    N2    537 

I>luid<    \'.    Alrliiso;!,   etc.,    1{.   Co., 

38    K.m!.   :;1  1    642 


TAIJLK    OK    CASES. 


lix 


[R('f<:'i-t'iici\s 

Elunt    V.    Littlo,    3    :\[asoii    102, 
3   Fed.  (as.  No.    1,  .")7S 

()3!t.  047 
V.  Strong,  60  Ala.  572  ...  1!)!) 
V.   Zuntz,   Anth.   X.  P.    (N. 

Y.)     180     1G9 

Blvth  V.  Fladi^^ato,  [I8!)!]    ]   Cli. 

■(Kng.)     337      232 

Blytlic     V.     Stato,     4     Ind.    .')2r> 

14.5,    714,     715 
Boak  V.  Mcrcliants'  iMarino  Ins. 

Co.,    1    Can.   Sup.   Ct.    110    .  .      699 
Board  of  Com'rs  v.  State  Capi- 
tal Co.,  16  Okla.  625,  86  Pac. 

518    ni4,  1115 

Board  of  County  Com'rs  v.  Bas- 
sott,    14    Idaho    324,    93    Pac. 

774      1113 

Board    of    Education    v.    Allin, 
134  Ky.  763,  121  S.  W. 

676      '. 608,     617 

V.  Pvankin,  142  Ky.  324,  134 

S.   W.   157    ". 945 

Board  of  Health  v.  Potts,  2  Pa. 
L.    J.    Rep.    52,    3    Pa.    L.    J. 

268     529 

Boardnian    v.    Boozewinkol,    121 
Mich.  320,  80  N.  W.  37 

296,  302 
V.  Thompson,   25   Iowa  487 

661,  750,     755 
Boca,    etc.,    R.    Co.   v.    Superior 
Court,   150   Cal.   153,   88   Pac. 

718     457,    458,     806 

Bochat  V.  Knisely,  144  111.  App. 

5.-)l      478 

Bodfish   V.    Fox.    23    Me.    90,    39 

Am.     Dec.    611     838,     931 

Bodcre  V.  Butler,  57   N.  H.  204     422 
Bodington     v.     Harris,     1     Bing 

187,  8  E.  C.  L.  464    ";      488 

Bodurtlia  v.   Goodrich,   3  Gray. 

(Mass.)     508     441,     446 

Boehm,   Re,   150  App.  Div.   443, 

135  N.  Y.  S.  42 1211,       1.320 

Boeram  v.  Jerome,  1  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)    293    265 

Bogan   V.   Wright,   22   IMisc.   94, 

48  N.  Y.  S.  546    765,     872 

Bogardus  v.  Livingston,  7  Abh. 
Pr.   (N.  Y.)   428   ..233, 

430,  902 
V.  Livingston,    2    Hilt     (N. 

Y.)     236     417,     518 

V.  Richtmever,    3    Abb.    Pr. 

(N.   Y.)    179    265 


are  to  pages.] 

Bogart  V.  Electrical  Supply  Co., 
23   Blatchf.   552,   27    Fed.  772 

537,     545 
Bogert  V.   Adams,   8   Colo.  App. 

185,    45    I'ac.   235    808 

V.  Bogert,  2   Edw.    (N.   Y.) 

399     187 

Bogliolo    V.    Scott,    5    Mo.    341 

78),     964 
Bohanan   v.    Peterson,   9    \Wnd. 
(N.  Y.)    503    ..115,  601,  614, 

620,     62.'? 
Boliling    V.    Bronson,    130    App. 

Div.  895,  115  N.  Y.  S.  29 218 

Boing  v.  Raleigh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  88 

N.     C.     62     531,     561 

Bolan  V.  Egan,  2  Brev.   (S.  C.) 

426      27 

Boland,  Re.  127  App.  Div.  746, 
752,  111  N.  Y.  S.  932   ..1173, 

1266,  1299 
Bollar   V.    Schoenwirt,   30   ]\Iisc. 

224,  63  X.  Y.  S.  311    ..1063,  1065 
Bolles,  Re,  78  App.  Div.  180,  79 

N.   Y.   S.   530    622,     840 

v.  O'Brien,  63  Fla.  342.   59 

So.  133    273,  279,     283 

Bollinger  v.  Gallagher,  163  Pa. 
St   245,   29   Atl.   751.   43  Am. 
St.  Rep.  791,  34  W.  N.  C.  564     336 
Bollmann  v.  Bollmann,  6   S.  C. 

29      478 

Bolte  v.  Fichtner,   68  Ilun   147, 

22    N.    Y.    S.    725    246,     952 

Bolton,  Re,  9  Beav.  272.  10  Jur. 

22      537 

v.  Daily,  48  la.  348   .  .747, 

748,     920 
Bond  V.  Sandford,  134  Mo.  App. 
477,    114    S.    W.    570     ..723, 

764,   768,     770 
Bonelli,  Goods  of,  1  P.  D.  (Eng.) 
69,  34  L.  T.  N.  S.  32,  45  L.  J. 

P.   42,   24  W.   R.   255    335. 

Bonestell    v.    Bowie,     128    Cal. 

511,    61    Pac.    78    776 

Bonev  v.  Hollingsworth,  23  Ala. 

690,       273 

Bonnefoy     v.    Landry,     4     Rob. 

(La.)    23    416,     430 

Bonnell  v.  Holt,  89  111.  71    .  . .      443 
v.  Prince,      11      Tex.      Civ. 
App.  399,  32  S.  W.  855 

418,    601,     777 
Bonner    v.    Green,    6    Tex.    Civ. 

App.  96,  24  S.  W.  835     724 
V.  McCreary,  35  S.  W.  197     600; 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eefereiicea  are  to  pages.] 


Bonney  v.  ]\IcClelland,   138   111. 
Am).   449.   affirmed  235 
111.   259,  85    N.   E.  242     473 
V.  Morrill,      57      Me.      368 

380,     40G 
Bonnifield     v.    Thorp,     71     Fed. 
924   ..351,  415,  426,  427,  432, 

439,  443,  455,     482 
Bonvnge  v.  Field,  81  N.  Y.  159 

462,  463,     544 
V.  Field,  44  Super  Ct.    (N. 

Y.)   581   544 

V.  Waterbury,   12  Hun  534 

462,  463,     543 

Boogren  v.  St.  Paul  City  R.  Co., 

97  Minn.  51,  106  N.  W.  104, 

114     Am.     St.     Rep.     691,     3 

L.R.A.(N.S.)     379     ....1009, 

1014,    1040,    104],    1046,  1078 
Booker    v.    Stinchfield,    47    Me. 

340      542 

Boone,  Re,  «3  Fed.  944  ..244, 
307,  314,  315,  317, 
1167,  1168,  1170,  1171, 
1172,  1187,  1212.  1201, 

1265,  1273,   1306 

Re,  90  Fed.  793  1332 

Boone     County     v.     Armstrong, 
23   Keb.    704,   37    X.    W.   620 

716,     814 
Bord   V.   Stubbs.   22  Tex.    Civ. 

App.  242,  54  S.  W.  633    ....      907 
Borcn     v.     McGehee,     6     Port. 
(Ala.)    432,  31  Am.  Dec.  695 

251,     497 

Borkstrom,  Re,  63  App.  Div.  7, 

71  N.  Y.  S.  451,  affirmed  168 

N.    Y.    639,    61    N.    E.    1127 

374,   612,  618,   619,   710,   788,     955 

Borland    v.    Thornton,    12    Cal. 

440      561 

Bormay  v.  Van  Ness,  26  Misc. 

599,   56  N.  Y.   S.   640    1322 

Borum    v.    Fonts,    15    Ind.    50 

165,    187,    190,     193 
Bosca,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Lassen 
County  Superior  Ct.,  150  Cal. 

153.   88   Pac.   718    807 

Bosler  v.   Searight.    149    Pa.  St. 

241,  24  Atl.  303  497 

Bosque  V.  U.  S..  209  U.  S.  91,  2S 
S.  Ct.  501,  52  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 

698  -3,   38 

Br)stick   V.  Cox,  28  Ark.  566    .  .      SCO 
Boston  Bar  Assoc,  v.  Cascv.  196 
Mass.  100,  81  X.  E.  892 

1218,  i:i07,   1325 


V.  Casey,  211  Mass.  187, 
Ann.  Cas.  191 3 A  1226, 
97  X.  E.  751,  39  L.R.A. 

(X.S.)     116    i30G 

V.  Casey.     213     ]\Iass.     549, 

100   N.   E.   658    1187 

V.  Greenhood,  168  Mass. 
169,  46  X.  E.  568 
116S,  1170,  1173,  1186, 
1231,  12.34,  1238,  1261, 
1262,  1273,  1290,  1309, 
1313,  1315.  1316,  1324,  1325 
V.  Hale,  197  Mass.  423.  83 
N.   E.   885    .  .  723,   748, 

749,  1307 
V.  Scott,  209  Mass.  200,  95 

N.  E.  402  ..1244,  1309,  1315 
Boston     etc.     Smelting     Co.     v. 
Pless,    9    Colo.    112,    10    Pac. 

652     995 

Boston  Elevated  R.  Co.,  James 
V.    201   Mass.    263,   87    X.    E. 

474     477 

Bosworth,  Re,  28   R.  I.  402.  68 

Atl.    316    02 

V.  Tallman,  00  Wis.  533.  29 

N.    W.    542    1054,  1055 

Bottome  v.  Neely,  54  Misc.  258, 

104  N.  Y.  S.  429    463 

Botts  V.   Crenshaw,   Chase   224, 

3    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    1,690    571 

Bougher  y.  Scobey,   16  Ind.  151 

574,  595,     597 
V.  Scobey,      23      Ind.      583 

516,    571,   592,    595,     598 
Boulden   v.   Hebel,    17    S.   &    R. 

(Pa.)    312    329,   575,     729 

Boulden,   Ex  p.,   6  Leigh    (Va.) 

639      1096 

Boung  V.   Jobc,    (Tenn.)    53    S. 

W.   763    991 

Bourbon     Stock-Yards     Co.     v. 
Louisville,   63    S.   W.   285,   23 

Ky.   L.   Rep.   420    511 

Buurguinon    v.    Boudouscjuie,    3 

La.  526   245 

Bourke  v.  Wliitiiig,   19   Colo.    1, 

.34  Pac.  172    934,  941,     943 

Boury,    Re,    8    X.    Y.    St.    Rep. 

809      212 

l?()utlier   V.    Johnson,    2    I'rowiie 

(Pa.)    17    424.     436 

P.owe  V.  Cami)bcll.  O."!    How.    I'r. 
(X.  Y.)    167,  2  Civ.  Proc.  232 

411.     545 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixi 


[References 

Bowen  v.  ^tna  Indemnitv  Co., 
151  la.  GG3.  131  N.  \V. 

1080      231 

V.  Smiilt,      (iG      Ilun      G27 
mem.,  20  N.  Y.  S.  735 

G14,     G20 

V.  Wood,  35  Ind.  2G8    235 

Bower    v.    Henshaw,    53    Miss. 

345      377 

Bowers   v.    Briggs,    20   Ind.    13!J 

183,  187,       191 
V.  State,    29    Ohio    St.    542     207 
V.  Virden,     5G     Miss,     595     306 
Bowles,  Ke,  58  Hun  009,  12  N. 

Y.  S.  4G8 7G7,     768 

V.      Doble,    11    Ore.    474,    5 

Pae.    918    777,     880 

V.     Wood,  90  Miss.  742,  44 

So.   169    848 

Bowling  V.  Scales,   1   Tenn.   Ch. 

G18    721,  782,   787,     922 

Bowling    Green    Sav.    Bank    v. 
Todd,     64     Barb.      (N. 
Y'.)     146    ..990,    1002,      1054 
V.  Todd,     52     N.     Y.-     489 

622,    623,    994,  1037 
Bowlsby  V.  Johnston,   13   N.  J. 

L.     349      422 

Bowman,  Re,  G7  Mo.  146  ....  loOG 
Re,  7  Mo.  App.  5G9  ..311, 
11G8,  1171,  1212,  1283, 
12S8,  1290,  1308,  1324,  1;127 
V.  Bowman,  153  Ind.  498, 

55  X.  E.  422  3()S,  318 

V.  Bowman,  1  Pears.    (Pa.) 

465      377 

V.  Coffroth,    59    Pa.    St.    19     753 
V.  Field,    9    Mo.    App.    57G. 

11  Mo.  App.  594   .  .561,     562 
V,  Phillips,  41  Kan.  364,  21 
Pac.    230,    13    Am.    St. 
Rep.  292,  3  L.R.A.  631 

753,     761 
V.  Tallman,     3     Abb.     Dec. 
(N.    Y.)     182    note.    40 

How.  Pr.   1    554,     558 

V,  Tallman,     27     How.     Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   212.  .5o],  552, 

894,     947 
V.  Tallman,     2     Robt.      (N. 

Y.)    385    946,   1018 

Bowne  v.  Hyde,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y'.) 

392      ..  .  .' 411 

Bowser  v.  Patrick,  65  S.  W.  824, 

23   Ky.   L.   Rep.    1578 675, 

760,  790,  792,  805,     809 


are  to  pages.] 

Boxman,  Re,  148  App.  Div.  286, 

132  N.  Y.  S.  217    1317,  1319 

Boyce  v.  Bates,  8  How.  ]*r.   (N. 

Y.)    495    540 

Boyd  V.  Boyce,   (Tex.)   53  S.  W. 

720     S8J,     917 

V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  84 

Mo.  615    780,     902 

V.  Daily,  85  App.  Div.  581, 
83  N.  Y.  S.  539,  affirmed 
176   N.    Y.   556,   68   N. 

E.  1114   801,  884,     886 

V.  G.  W.  Chase,  etc.,  Co., 
135  Mo.  App.  115,  115 
S.  W.  1052  . .  764,  809, 

812,  813,  963,  1042 
V.  Lee,  36  S.  C.  19,  15  S.  E. 

332   782 

V.  Stone,  5  Wis.  240  244 

V.  Sumner,  10  Wis.  41  .  .   773 
Boydell  v.  Jones,  4  M.    &  W. 
(Eng.)  446,  7  Dowl.  210,  1  H. 

&  H.  408  13!> 

Bovden  v.  Lamb,  152  Mass.  416, 

25  N.  E.  609    490. 

Boyer  v.  Bugher,   19  Wvo.  463, 
120     Pac.     171'    ..633. 

640,  641,     643. 

V.  Clark,   3    Neb.    161     1054 

Boyctt  V.   Pavne,   141    Ala.   475, 

37    So.    5S5'    ..602,    608,    615,     618 
Bovkin   v.   Holden,   6   La.   Ann. 

120      427 

Boylan    v.    Holt,    45    Miss.    277 

781,  791.     959 
V.  Whitney,  3  Ind.  140    .  . .      446 
Boyle  V.  Beattie,  2  Cine.  Super. 

Ct.   Ohio   490    397.     401 

V.  Boyle,      116      Fed.      764 

981,   1028 
V,  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.. 
134   Mo.   App.    71,    114 
S.   W.   558    ..808,   81.3, 

1042,   1048 
V.  Read,   138   111.   App.   153 

273,  287,     294 
V.  Robinson,   129  Wis.  567, 

109   N.   W.   623    2201 

Bovnton  v.  Brown,  103  Ark.  513, 

145    S.  W.   242    564,   900,     958: 

Bozon   V.    Bolland,   4  Nvl.   &   C. 

(Eng.)   354 974,  975,  994,  1087" 

Bracher    v.    Olds,    60   N.   J.   Eq. 

449,    46    Atl.   770    1038; 

Bracher's  Will,  Re,  00  N.  J.  Eq. 

350,  51   Atl.  63 974 


Ixii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Refer 

Bracken  v.  Citv,  27  Pittsb.  Leg. 

J.    (Pa.)    202    

Brackenridge     v.     Claridge,     91 
Tex.  527,  44  S.  W.  819, 

43    L.R.A.    593     

V.  McFarlane,  1  Add.  (Pa.) 

49     8G3, 

Bracket!,  Re,  lU  App.  Div.  257, 

259,   260,    99    N.    Y.    S. 

802    ..758,    759.    1023, 

1026, 

V.  Norton,  4  Conn.  517,   10 

Am.    Dec.    179     ..251, 

275,  500,  503,  725,  726, 

765,    948, 

V.  Sears,   15   Mich.   244 

701,   781,   783,  785, 

V.  Seavey,  (N.  Y.)  ]31  N. 

Y.  S.  664  283, 

Bradbcrry  v.  State,  7  Tex.  App. 

375  

Braden  v.  Ward.  42  N.  J..L.  518. 

9D5,    ]034,    1048, 
Bradford,  Re,  15  Q.  B.  D.  635. 
53   L.   J.   Q.   B.   65,   50 
L.  T.  N.  S.  170,  32  W. 

R.  238    

V.  Arnold,      33      Tex.      412 

370,    392,    394. 

v.  Malone.     49     Tex.     Civ. 

App.    440,    130    S.    W. 

1013      

V.  State,  7  Neb.   109    

V.  Ware's   Ex'r,    12   Ky.   L. 

Rep.     986      (abstract) 

Bradlaugii  v.  Xewdegate,  11    Q. 

B.   D.    (Eng.)    1 

Bradley,  Ex  p.,  7  Wall.  364,  19 

U.  S".  (L.  ed.)  214  ..32.  1172, 

1173,  1174.  1309, 

Bradley,  Re.  14  Idaho  784,  96 

Pac.  208  1249, 

V.  Andrews,    51    Midi.    100, 

Ki    X.    W.    250     

V.  i'isbcr.  7  I).  C.  32,  af- 
firmed 13  Wall.  335, 
20  r.  S.  (L.  ed.)  046. 
32,  lies.  1172,  1174, 
11S9,  1  l!i(),  1193.  1282, 
I2SS,  130S,  1311, 
V.  Toclimati,  1  Tlayw.  &  H. 
263.    3    Fed.   "(as.    No. 

1.7H8     

V.  Wclcb,    100    Mo.   258,    12 

S.    W.    911     .  .235,    43!», 

443,    446, 


ences  are  to  pages.] 


Bradshaw  v.  State,  17  Nel).  147 

500  22    N.    W.    361     1107 

Bradstreet  v.  Everson,  72  Pa. 

St.  124,  13  Am.  Rep.  668  522 
340   Bradt  v.  Koon,  4  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

416  1041,  1034 

871  V.  Scott,  63  Hun  632  mem., 

18  N.  Y.  S.  507    ..375, 

370 
V.  Walton,  8  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

1034  298     537,     538 

Bradtfeldt  v.  Cooke,  27  Ore.  194, 
40  Pac.  1,  50  Am.  St.  Rep. 

701  777 

949       Bradwell,    Re,   55   111.   535,   539 

47,  52,  53,     54 
947  V.  Illinois,     16    Wall.    130, 

21    U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    442 
286  affirming     55     111.     535 

33,   40,   41,  47,   50,   53,     442 
133       Brady   v.   Brooks,   99   Tex.   366, 

89    S.   W.    1052    1155 

1050  V.  Ciirran,    Ir.    R.    2    C.    L. 

314,     16     W.     R.     514 

402,     404 
V.  Palmer,     10     Ohio     Cir. 
537  Dec.    27,    19   Ohio   Cir. 

Ct.   687    337 

501  V.  State.    39    Neb.    529,    58 

N.  W.   161    ..158,   187, 

190.     197 
267       Brahan  v.  First  Nat.  Bank,   72 

1148  Miss.  266,  16   So.  203    778 

Brainard  v.   Elwood,  53  la.  30, 
1053  3    N.    W.    799    ...1047,  1049 

V.  Singo.    164   Ala.    353,   51 

674  So.   522    581 

Braine  v.   Spalding,  52   Pa.  St. 

247      329 

1329       Bramble  v.  Hunt,   08    Hun  204, 

22  N.  Y.  S.  842    936,     941 

1250       Bramwell   v.   Lucas,   4    Dowl.   & 
R.  307,  2  B.  &  C.  745,  9  E.  C. 

131  L.   233    187 

Branch.  Re,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57 

Atl.   431      .32.   33.   64,   65,   {\S,     73 
V.  Burnlev,     1     Coll.     (Va.i 

147    ". 364.     500 

V.   Kleiuecke,  3  Wilson  Civ. 
1310  Cas.    Ct.    App.     (Tex.) 

106    907 

V.  Walker.     92     X.     C.     87 
1172  212.     468 

Brand    \.    I'raiid.    .'>9    ilow.    I'r. 

(N.    Y.)     193    172. 

465  189.     20G 


TAIJLE    OF    CASKS. 


Ixiii 


[Reference's 

Tlrand    v.   Crais,   84    (h\.    12.    10 

S.    E.    ;!()!)    . r)24,     530 

Bianden   v.   Gowiiio-,   7   Rieli.    L. 

45!)    ' IS!) 

Braiidigeo    v.    Hale.    L")    .loluis. 

(X.    Y.)     125    328 

Brandon   v.   Allen,   28   La.   Ann. 

(10    858 

Brandt  v.  Klein,  17  Johns.    (N. 

Y.)    335    202 

Brandy  v.  New  York,   1   Sandf. 

(X.  Y.)   569 879 

Branger    v.    Buttriek,    30    Wis. 

153   125,     130 

Branth  v.  Brantli,  19  Civ.  Proc. 

28,   10  N.  Y.  S.  (538    ..    1034,   1071 
Branvan   v.  Kay,   33   8.   C.  283, 

n"S.  E.  970   773 

Brard  v.  Ackcrman,  5  Esp.  120     198 
Braslield  v.  Young,    (Tex.)    153 

S.   W.    ISO    418 

Brassington    v.    Brassington,    1 

Sim.  &  St.   (Eng.)   455 974 

Bratt    V.    Scott,     63    Hun    032 

mem.,  IS  N.  Y.  S.  507   .  .   711,     887 
J3ray  v.  Dolieny,   39  Minn.  355, 

40   X.   W.  262    488 

V.  Staples,     ISO     Fed.     321, 

103  C.  C.  A.  451 844 

Brayton  v.  Chase,  3  Wis.  456  .  .      174 
Brazcl    v.    Fair,    26    S.    C.    370, 

2  S.  E.  293   220 

Brazier  v.  Fortune,  10  Ala.  516 

163,  166,  187,     208 
r.reatliitt  Coal,  etc..  Co.  v.  Greg- 
ory, 78  S.  W.  148.  25  Kv.  L. 

Uep.  1507    239,  792,' 793,     937 

Breaux  v.  Francke,  30  La.  Ann. 
336  .  .  788,  789,  791,  924,  925, 

928,  929,     930 
Brack  v.  O'Donnell,  7  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  24    295 

Breckenridge,   Re,   31    Neb.   489, 

48  N.  W.  142   1240 

V.  Shrieve,    4    Dana    (Ky.) 

375    323,     521 

Breckenridge's  Case,   1   S.  &   R. 

(Pa.)     187     31 

Bred  in    v.    Kingland,    4    Watts 

(Pa.)    420    599,     951 

Breeden  v.  Frankford  Marine 
Ace.  &  Plate  Glass  Ins.  Co., 
220   Mo.   327,    119    S.   W.   570 

655,  656,  657,     061 
JBreedlove  v.  Turner,  9  Mart.  0. 
S.  (La.)   353   ..  552,  553,  554, 

563,     566 


are  to  pages.] 

Breen,  Re,  30  X"ev.  164,  93  Pac, 
!)!t7,  17  L.R.A.(X.S.)  572.. 
1  HiS.    llC!),    1170.    1176,    1194, 

1196,  1197.  1198,   1256 
Breen   y.  Tnion   R.   Co.,   9   App. 
]y\\.    122,    75    X.    Y.   St.   Rep. 

615,  41  X.  Y.  S.  164 872,     887 

Breitling.  Re,  133  Fed.  146,  66 
C.   C.  A.  212.   13  Am.   Bankr. 

Rep.    126    62S 

Breitmesaer   y.    Stier,    13    Pliila. 

(Pa.)    80,  36  Leg.  Int.  4S6    ..      650 
Bremcl  v.  State,  71  Wis.  444,  37 

X.  W.  244   1105 

Bremer  v.  Freeman,   10  Moo.  P. 

C.    (Eng.)    306    . 339 

Bremsen  v.  Engler,  49  Super.  Ct. 

(N.   Y.)    172    752 

Brennan    v.    Glennon,    44    App. 
Div.   107,   60  N.   Y.   S. 

643    17G 

V.  Hall,  131  N.  Y.  160,  29 
N.  E.  1009,  affirming 
60    Hun    583    mem.,    14 

N.  Y.  S.  864    176.     185 

Brennan-Loye  Co.  y.  Mcintosh, 
62  Neb.  522,  87  X.  W.  327   .  . 

887,     891 
Brenner  y.  Luth,  28  Kan.  581 .  .      334 
Brent  v.  Brent,  24  111.  App.  448  1055 
y.  Maryland,  18  Wall.  430, 

21  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   777..      266 
Brett    y.    Brett,     33     Hun     547, 

affirmed  OS  X.  Y.  619.  .      851 
y.  Smith,  1  Ont.  Pr.  309   .  .      131 
Brewer,  Re,  3  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 

169     34,       64 

V.  Casey,  196  Mass.  384,  82 

X.  E.  45  388,  408 

V.  Cook,  11  La.  Ann.  637  .  .   924 

V.  Jacobs,  22  Fed.  217 636 

V.  Jones,  10  Exch.  (Eng.) 

655,  1  Jur.  X.  S.  240  545 
V.  Hartman,  116  Minn.  512, 

134  X.  W.  113  371 

V.  Watson,  61  Ala.  310  ..  352 
V.  Watson,  65  Ala.  88  ....  352 
V,   w'atson,  71   Ala.  299,  46 

Am.  Rep.  318 352 

Brewster,   Re,   12  Hun    (X.  Y.) 

109    1295 

y.  Frazier,  32  Md.  302 946 

y.  Manning,  6  Hun  (X".  Y.) 

530 432,     886 

Bridge    y.    Samuclson,    73    Tex. 
522,    11    S.    W.    539    .  . 

426,  428,     433 


Ixiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  arc  to  pages.] 


Bridgeport    v.    Bridgeport    Hy- 
draulic  Co.,   81    Conn.    84,   70 

Atl.  (i50   !'■)'.) 

Bridgeport    Bank    v.    Sherwood, 

IG  Johns.    (X.  Y.)    43    10 

Bridges    v.    Paioe,    13    Cal.    041 

943,     94r, 

V.  Sheldon.   7   Fed.   36    10 

Bridoton     v.     Bennett.     23     Me. 

420   41G,     422 

Briescnmeister        v.        Supreme 
Lodge,  etc.,  81   Mich.  525,  45 

X.   W.   977    227 

Brig  Harriet,  The  —  01c.  Adm. 

222.    11    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    G,09t)     4G0 
Briggs,    Ex    p.    L.    R.    8    C.    P. 

(Eng.)   G3   1182 

V.  Gardn"er,  GO  Hun  (X.  Y.) 

543,  15  X.  Y.  S.  335..      417 
V,  Georgia,  10  Vt.  G8.  .371, 

374,  710,  711,  712,  900,     961 
V.  Georgia,  15  Vt.  61.. Oil, 

91G.     953 
V.  Hodgdon,   78  Me.  514,   7 

Atl.  387 285,  293, 

300,     302 
V.  Withey,  24  Mich.  136   ..      308 
Brigham     v.     Foster,     7     Allen 

(Mass.)   419   ..   709,  711,  712,     900 
V,  McDowell,    19    Xeb.   407, 
27   N.   W.   384    ..    212, 

214,     216 
V.  Xewton,     49     La.     Ann. 

1539,  22  So.  777  302 

V.  Xewton,  106  La.  2S0,  30 

So.   849    272 

V.  Smitli,     2     Cli.     Chamb. 

(Ont.)     462     537 

Bright    V.    Jlewes,    18    La.    Ann. 

666    796 

V.  Patton.     5     IMackey     ( D. 
C.)    534,    GO    Am.    Rep. 

390    650 

V.  Ross.     1 1     Smed.     &     M. 

(Miss.)    289    323 

V.  Tavlor,  4  Snecd.   (Teiin.) 

159    7!)1 

Brindley  v.  J'.rindh'v.  121  Ala. 

42!),  25  So.  751  .'. 75S 

Brin^l.'V  v.  Sclml/.,  12t  Wis.  426, 

102  .\.  W.  !»1S  640 

]5ristol   V.    Danii,    12   W  (  iid.    (X. 

V.)    142,  27   Am.   Dec.    122    .  .      671 
Bri.stolGoodson    I'llcctric    Light, 
••tc,  Co.,  V.   Hristol  Gas,  tti., 
Co.,  99  Tenn.  371,  42  S.  W.  19     842 


Bristor  v.  Tasker,  135  Pa.  St. 
110,  19  Atl.  851,  853,  20  Am. 
St.  Rep.  853,  26  W.  X.  C.  40.  .  1241 
Bristow  V.  Sequcville.  5  Exch. 
(Enir.)  275.  19  L.  J.  Exch. 
289,  14  Jur.  674.  3  C.  &  K.  64  335 
British  ]'hnpire  Typesetting 
]\Iach.  Co.  y.  Spell  issy.  83 
App.  Diy.  040  mem..  82  "X.  Y. 

S.  47    262,  263,     264 

British  ;\Iut.  Invest.  Co.  v.  Cob- 
bold,  L.  R.  19  Eq.  (Eng.) 
027,  44  L.  J.  Ch.  332,  23  W.  R. 

487    582 

Britt  V.  Burghart,  10  Tex.  Civ. 
App.^  78,  41   S.  W.  389 

782,   888,   918,     962 
V.  Van    Xorden.     1     Johns. 

Cas.    (X.  Y.)    390   537 

V.  Van    Orden,    Col.    &    C. 

Cas.   (X.  Y.)   99 537 

Britton  y.  Bese,  23  Pittsb.  Leg. 

J.  X.  S.   (Pa.)   181   ...      807 
V.  Lorenz.   45    X".    Y.   51    .  . 

184,     206 
Broad  v.  Pitt.  3  C.  &  P.  518,  14 

E.  C.  L.  423   187 

Broadway    y.    Sidwav,    84    Ark. 

527,   107  S.  W.  163    ...  .    415,     432 
Brobst  V.  RnlT,   100  Pa.  St.  91, 

45  Am.  Rep.  358    650 

Brock  V.   Barnes,   40   Barb.    ( X". 

Y.)  521.. 274,  282,  283,     744 
V.  Brock,  47  Pa.  Super.  C  t. 

G21     607 

Brockley    v.    Brockley,    122    Pa. 

St.    L    15   Atl.    (m    385,     390 

Brockman,   Ex    p.   233   Mo.    135, 

134  S.  W.  977   148 

Broda  v.  (ireenwald,  Mi  Ala.  538     561 
Brodie  y.  Parsons,  04  S.  \V.  426, 
23     Ky.     L.     Rep.     831 

!)48.     950 
V.   Watkiiis.     33     Ark.    545, 
;!4  .\m.  Rep.  49   .  .   728, 

792.  793,  794.     943 
r.riH'iniaii    v.    I!\aii,   G   Ohio  Cir. 

!).■(•.    15    ' 641 

Hnigan    v.    i'ortcr,    145   Ey.   587, 

140  S.  VV.   1007    " 183 

i'romago  v.  IJavics.  4  Jur.  X.  S. 

(Eng.)    683   537 

IJrdiiibery     v.     Sands,     127     Ala. 

4  11,   :!(')  So.  510    005 

liromwell  y.  Tuiiut,  .'{7  111.  Ap|). 
561    1031 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


\xv 


[References 

Bronson  v.  Freeman,  8  How.  Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    4!)2   545 

V.  :\Iunson,  29  Jhm  54 OOG 

Bronston  v.  Bronston,  141  Kv. 

U3!),  133  S.  \V.  584 T.   20U 

Broad,  Re,  15  Q.  B.  D.  (Eno;.) 

420  G!)4 

Brook  V.  ^Montague,  Cro.  Jac. 

(Eng.)  DO  .  .  . 123 

Brooklyn     Bar     Assoc,     Re,     02 
App.'  Div.  (J]2  mem.,  86  N.  Y. 

S.   1130    1295 

Brooks  V.  Brooks,  90  X.  C.  142 

477,  1190.  1207 
V.  Brooks,  16  S.  C.  621  450 
V.  Cavanaugh,   11  La.  Ann. 

183    '. 481 

V.  Fleming.  6  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 

331    .' 1169.  1324,  1331 

V.  Ilanford,     15     Abb.     Pr. 

(X.   Y.)    342    1054 

V.  Holden,    175    Mass.    137, 

55  X.  E.  802    222,     225 

V.  Kearns,  86  HI.  547    359 

V.  Xew   Durham,  55   X.   H. 

559    489 

V.  Patterson,  2  Jolins.  Cas. 
102,     Col.     &     C.     Cas. 

133    , 10,  114,     115 

V.  Poirier,  10  La.  Ann.  512 

375,     380 
V.  Pratt,    118    Fed.    725,   55 

C.  C.  A.  515    282,     285 

V.  Snell,    1    Sprague    48.    4 
Fed.     Cas.     Xo.     1.961 

804,  1039 
Brossoit   V.   Turcotte,   20   L.    C. 

Jur.    141    138 

Brotherson  v.  Consalus,  26  How. 

Pr.   (X.  Y.)   213 682.683,     742 

Bronnsall,  Ex  p.  2  Cowp.  (Eng.) 

829    1166.  1168,  1173 

Broward   v.   Doggett.   2   Fla.  49     961 
Brovvder  v.   Long's   Ex'r.,   66   S. 
W.  600,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  2068 

012,     913 
Brown,   Ex   p..   1    How.    (■Nliss.) 

303    1178,  1240 

Ex  p.  2  Pittsl).   (Pa.)    152..    1249 
Re,  1  X.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.  09.  4 
Fed.     Cas.     Xo.     1,984 

1035.   1036 
Re,  3  \Vvo.  121.  4  Pac.  1085 

1102.  1194,  1101),  1197 
Re,  2  Okla.  590,  39  Pac.  4()0 

1300,  1324 


are  to  pages.] 

Brown  v.  Ackroyd,  5  El.  &  Bl. 

819,  85  E.  C.  L.  819.  .  908 
V.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723,  67 

C.  C.  A.  125,  reversing 

127    Fed.    387     ..    251, 

252,   2,53,     415 
V.  Biglev,   3   Tenn.   Ch.   618 

986,  997,  1082,  1087 
V.  Bigne.    21    Ore.    260.    28 

Pac.    11,    28    Am.    St. 

Rep.  752,  14  L.R.A.  745  663 
V.  Blackwell,  26  U.  C.  C.  P. 

43    402 

V.  Brown,  7  D.  C.  221    450 

V.  Brown.    4    Ind.    627,    58 

Am.  Dec.  641 537,     538 

V.  Brown,       How.       X'.      P. 

(Mich.)   94 237,     254 

V.  Brown,  77  X\'b.  125,  108 

X.  W.  180    212,     22.> 

V.  Bulklev,  14  X.  J.  Eq.  451 

273,  566,     747 

V.  Bull.  3  Mass.  211 322 

V.  Bunger,  43  S.  W.  714,  19 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  1527  ..383,  407 
V.  Burnett.  10  111.  App.  279  134 
V.  Butler,  71  Conn.  576,  42 

Atl.  654  190,  200 

V.   Central     Bermudez     Co., 

162  Ind.  453,  69  X.  E. 

150    856 

V.  Childs,  17  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 

1   10,     470 

V.  Comstock,    10    Barb.    (X. 

Y.)     07.    3    Code    Rep. 

142  -.  .  1043,  1046,  1060- 

V.  Cragg,  230  111.  299,  82  X. 

E.    569,    reversing    129 

111.  App.  597   836, 

837,     882- 
V.  Curtis,  111  la.  542,  82  X. 

W.  945  760 

V.  Early,     2     Duv.      (Ky.) 

369    ".  .  .      147 

V.  Foster,  1  H.  &  X.  (Eng.) 

736    20O 

V.  French,  159  Ala.  645,  49 

So.  255 425 

V.  Genet,   63   How.   Pr.    (X. 

Y.)    236    888- 

V.  Georgia   C.  &  X".   R.  Co., 

101  Ga.  SO,  28  S.  E.  634 

1042.  1075.   1084 
V.  Ginn,  66  Ohio  St.  316.  64 

N.  E.  123 670,     672: 


Jxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ar 

.Brown  v.  Globe  Printing  Co.  213 
..10.  Gil,  112  S.  W.  4G2, 
127  Am.  St.  Rep.  627  138 
V.  Great  Camp  of  Knights 
of  Modern  Maccabees, 
167   Mich.   123,   132  N. 

W.  562 342 

V.  Green,  132  La.  1090,  62 

So.  154  244,  504 

V.  Grove.  SO  Fed.  564,  42  U. 
S.  App.  508,  25  C.  C.  A. 

644  185 

V.  Hendrickson,  39  X.  J.  L. 

239  1056 

V.  Huffard,     69     Mo.     305 

936,     941 
V.  Jeft'erson     County     Nat. 

Bank,  9  Fed.  258    266 

V.  Jewett,  120  Mass.  215  219 
V.  Lambeth,  2  La.  Ann.  822  857 
V.  Lapp,   89   S.   W.   304.   28 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  409  .  .   982,  1053 
V.  McBride,  24  Misc.  235,  52 

N.  Y.  S.  620    026 

V.  :\Iatthews,  79  Ga.  1,  4  S. 
E.  13    ..    175,  176,  184, 

191,  193,     205 
V.  Mead,  68  Vt.  215,  34  Atl. 

950   362,  385,  380,     398 

V.  Mieliel,  Cro.  Eliz.  (Eng.) 

500    535 

V.  Moosic  ^fountain  Coal 
Co.,  211  Pa.  St.  579.  61 

Atl.    76    184,     223 

V.  Morgan,     163     Fed.     395 

976,  1016,  1031,  1081 
V.  New    York,    9    Ilun     (N. 

Y.)    587    ....    729,  873,     983 
V.  New   York,   11   Hun    (N. 

Y.)  21  ..  735,  990,  991,  1066 
V.  Nicholas,  9   Abb.   I'r.   N. 

R.   1 518 

V.  Nichols,     42     N.     Y.     26 

417,  440,  444,     5 IS 

V.  Oattis.   55   Ga.  416    '^M 

V.  I'arker,      28       Wis.      21 

484.  4!);!,      -i'.tl 
V.   Pavsoii.   6    N.    II.   4^3    .  . 
164,    ]!I3,    1!)S,  200,  202, 

203,     218 
v.  PcchiMan,    55    S.    C.    555, 

r.i  S.  K.  732   348 

•V.  Proplr's  Nat.  i'.ank,  170 
.Midi.  4  16,  i:;ii  .\.  N\  . 
50(i    359 


e  to  pages.] 

Brown  v.  Publishers  George 
Knapp  &  Co.,  213  Mo. 
655,  112  S.  W.  474  ...  138 
V.  Quinton,  80  Kan.  44,  18 
Ann.  Cas.  290,  102  Pac. 
242,     25     L.R.A.(N.S.) 

71    721 

V.  Remington.  90  Hun  214, 

35  N.  Y.  S.  621   952 

V.  Sewell,  16  Ch.  D.  (Eng.) 

517    694 

V.  Spiegel,  156  Mich.  138, 
120  N.  W.  579,  16  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  -i^  .  .  481, 

482,  485,     532 
V.  State,  52  Tex.  Crim.  267, 

106  S.  W.  368 147 

V.  State,  132  Pac.  359   155 

V.  Travelers'  Life  &  Acci- 
dent Ins.  Co.,  26  App. 
Div.    544,    50   N.   Y.    S. 

720    464 

V.  Travellers'    Life   &    Acci- 
dent Ins.   Co.,  21   App. 
Div.  42,  47  N.  Y.  S.  253     462 
V.  Underbill,    4    Ind.    App. 

77,  30  N.  E.  430  .  .  709,     899 
V.  Warren      Countv       (la.) 
135  N.  W.  4,  42  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    527    140 

V.  White,  153  Ky.  452,  156 

S.  W.  96   677 

V.  Wilsim,  21  Colo.  309,  40 
Pac.    688,    52    Am.    St. 

Rej).  228    270 

V.  Woods.   2   Okla.   601     39 

I'ac.  473   1093,  1175 

Brown's  Estate,  131  Pa.  St.  352, 

18  Atl.  901    1028 

Browne,    K\    p.    2    Colo.   553    .  . 

608.  617.   1227,  1332,  1337 
V.  Dunn,  6  Rep.    (Eng.)    67      123 
V.  West,  9  App.  Div.  135,  41 
N.  >■.  S.  146,  75  N.  Y. 

St.    Ibp.   604    465, 

(J63,  681,   729 
lirowiic's    Appeal.    69    Mo.    App. 

l.V.)    1121 

Browning  v.   Marvin,   100  N.  Y. 

144.  2   N.    K.  (i35    6S2 

Brownrigg     v.     ^Vlassengalc,     97 
.Mo.  A|)p.    190,  70  S.  W.    1103 

8S2.     941 
Hrnvlrs     V.      Allinld,      11      ilcisk. 

(icnn.)    484    581 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


Ixvii 


I  Rcfcreiicc'S 

ISruce    V.    Andorson,    ITli    -Mass. 
IG],    57    N.    K.    ;)r)4    .  . 

!)7!),     l();il),   1052 
V.  Baxter,    7    Lea     (Term.) 
477    . .    583,    585,    r)8.S, 

592,     nil 
V.  Dickey,  116  111.  527,  G  N. 

E.  435  .  .  886,  925,  929.  932 
V.  Fox,  1  Dana  (Kv.)  447  1096 
V.  Osgood,  113  Ind.  360,  14 

N.  E.  563    209 

Bruockner  v.  Frederick,  109  Me. 

App.  614,  83  S.  \V.  775     532 
Bnilcv  V.  Garvin,  105  Wis.  625, 

81  N.  W.  1038,  48  L.R.A.  839     191 
Brumbaugh  v.  Stockman,  83  Ind. 

583    562 

Brundige  v.  Ashlev,  62  Oliio  St. 

526,  57  N.  E.  226    852 

Brundin,    Re,    112    Fed.    306,    7 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  296   818 

Brungger  v.  Smith,  49  Fed.  124     172 
Brunings  v.  Tovvnsond,  139  Cal. 

137,  72  Bac.  919    G12 

Brusli  V.  Carbondale,  229  111. 
144.  11  Ann.  Cas.  121,  82  N. 
E.  252    .  .    653,  654,  655,  662, 

675,     761 
Bruvn    v.    Comstock,    56    Barb. 

(N.  Y.)    9 871,  958,     959 

Brvaus      v.       Taylor,       Wriglit 

(Ohio)  245  .  .  .". iiU,     425 

Bryant,  Re,  24  X.  H.  149.  .1177,  1189 

Re.  50  L.  T.  N.  S.  450 613 

V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
64  App.  Div.  542,  72  N. 
Y.  S.  308  .  .  237,  254, 
255,  261,  262,  718,  796. 

797,  807,  1051 
V.  Hamlin,  3   Pa.   Dist.   Ct. 

385    369 

V.  Harding,  29  Mo.  347  .  .  461 
v.  Hawkins,  47  Mo.  410  .  .  520 
V.  Mcintosh,    3    Cal.    App. 

95,  84  Pac.  440  ..  307,  310 
▼.  Maxwell,  12  S.  W.   1134, 

11  Ky.  L.  Rep.  225    .  .      921 

V.  Owen,  1  Port   (Ala.)   201     453 

V.  Peebles,   92   N.   C.   176..      605 

V.  Williams,   21   la.   329    .  .      443 

Bryant's  Case.  24  X.  H.  149,  158       56 

Bryn  Mawr  Xat.  Bank  v.  James, 

152   Pa.   St.   364,   25    Atl.   823 

443.     465 

Buchanan,  Re,  28  Mo.  App.  230  1315 

V.  Beard,  13  Ind.  471    150 


arc  to  pages.] 

Buchanan    v.    'I'ciiiiaiit,    60    Ore. 

560,  120   Pac.  404    911 

15uclier    llolil,    199    Mo.    320,    97 
S.   W.  922,   IIG   Am.  St.   Rep. 

492    296,  303,     305 

Buchler.  Re,  155  App.  Div.  246, 

140   X.   Y.   S.   324    1219,  1229 

Buck   y.   Blair,   36   La.   Ann.    16 

678,  680 
V.  Eureka,   124   Cal.   61,   56 

Pac.  612   760,  961 

Bucki  etc.,  Lumber  Co.  v.  Atlan- 
tic Lumber  Co.,  128 
Fed.   332,    63    C.    C.    A. 

62    1056 

V.  Fidelity,     etc.,     Co.,     109 
Fed.  '393,    48    C.   C.   A. 

436    858 

Buck  land  v.   Conway,   16   Mass. 

390    489,     490 

Buckle  V.  Roach,  1  Chit.  193,  18 

E.  C.  L.  64   488 

Buckler  v.   Robinson,    (Ky.)    96 

S.  W\  1110   945,  94(i,     948 

Buckles    v.     Xortheast    Kansas 
Tel.  Co.,  79  Kan.  34,  99  Pac. 

813    707,     917 

Buckley  v.  Buckley,  64  Hun  632 
mem.,  45  X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
827    ..    258,    259,    371, 

799,  800,     952 
v.  Gray,    110    Cal.    339,    42 
Pac.    900,    52    Am.    St. 
Rep.  88,  31  L.R.A.  862 

529,  586 
V.  Jones,  58  111.  App.  357  774 
v.  Van  Diver,  70  Miss.  622, 

18  So.  905   858 

V.  Wood,  Cro.  Eliz.    (Eng.) 

230    535 

Buckmaster   v.   Kelley,    15    Fla. 

ISO    331 

Budd  v.  Gamble,  13  Fla.  265    .  .      425 
Buddicum  v.  Kirk,  3  Cranch  293, 

2   U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    444    ....      468 
Budlong   v.    Budlong,   31    Wash. 

228,   71   Pac.   751    385,     409 

Buena  Vista  County  v.  I.  F.  & 

S.  C.  R,  Co.,  49  ia.  657    562 

BuHalow  v.  Buffalovv,  22  X.  C. 

241   272,     295 

Buhl  Malleable  Co.  v.  Cronan,  59 

Ore.  242,  117  Pac.  317 433 

Buice    y.     Lowman     Gold,     etc., 

Min.  Co.,  64  Ga.  769   .. 466 

Bulkelev  v.  State  Bank,  68  Cal. 
80,  8"  Pac.  643    678,     680 


Ixviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Rcforo 

Bulklev  V.  \Yilford,  2   CI.  &   F. 

(Eng.)    174    279, 

Bull    V.    St.    John.    39    Ga.    78 

7G4,  779,  87G,  918, 

Billiard  v.  Van  Tassoll,  3  How. 

Pr.   (N.  Y.)   402 

Bullis  V.  Easton,  90  la.  513,  G.5 

N.  W.  395   

Bullitt   V.    Baird,    27    Leg.    Int. 

(Pa.)     171     

Bullock    V.    Anglenian,     (X.    J.) 

87  Atl.  627    

V.  Taylor,  39  Mich.  137,  33 

Am.  Rep.  356 

Bundy  v.  McLean,  104  Wis.  263, 

80  N.  W.  445  831, 

Bunel  V.  O'Day,  125  Fed.  303 

382, 

Bunn  V.  Prather,  21  111.  217.. 

Bunton  v.  Lvford,  37  N.  H.  512, 

75  Am.  Dee.  144  444, 

Burbanks  v.  Lepovsky,  134  Mich. 

384,   96   N.   W.   456    

Burcliard,  Re,  27  Hun  429  .  .  15, 

16,  72,   84, 

Burdette  v.  Argile,  94  111.  App. 

171    

Burgen   v.    Sharer,    14    B.    Mon. 

(Ky.)    497    

Burgess  v.  Sims  Drug  Co.,  114 
Ta.  275,  86  N.  W.  307, 
89    Am.    St.    Rep.    359, 

54  L.R.A.  364 

V.  Stevens,  76  Me.  559   .... 

Burgett  V.  Burgett,  43  Ind.  78.  . 

Burgiiart    v.    Gardner.    3    Barb. 

(X.  Y.)    64    ..    231,  888,  8S9, 

902, 

P.urgin  &  Sons  Glass  Co.  v.  Mc- 

Intii-e.  7  Cia.  App.  755,  68  S. 

E.  490    9!)(i, 

P.urgraf  v.  Uyrnes,  94  .Minn.  41 S, 

lO.-J    X.    \V.    215    .  .    37S,    3S4. 

39li, 

iiwrham  v.  Iles-lton,  32  .Me.  495, 

20   Atl.  SO.  9   L.R.A.  90    

ISiirlio  V.  Carinicliicl.   117   Minn. 
211.    Ann.    (as.     l'.li:il)    ;;().'., 

135    X.    W.   3S()    

Miiikr,   He.  9  Oiiio  Cir.   Di'c  ;!50. 

17     Ohio    (  ir.    Ct.    :!15 

12.".  3, 

lie.     1  1     Ohio    (ir.     Dec.    .■'.97, 

■21    (ilii.i   (ir.   (  t.  .".  1.  . 
Be,  U  Am.   I!ankr.   !!<  p.  .".((2 


nces  are  to  pages.] 

Burke  v.  Baker,  111  App.  Div. 
422,  97  X.  Y.  768.  af- 
frmed  188  N.  Y.  561,  80 
X.  E.  1033   .  .   723,  745. 

746.  764 
V.  Dalv,  14  Mo.  App.  542  .  .  29(5 
V.  Dorev.  208  Mass.  45,  94 

X.  E.  291 943 

V.  Stillwell,  23  Ark.  294   .  . 

574,  597 
Burkham  v.  Daniel,  56  Ala.  610  548 
Burkhard  v.  State,  18  Tex.  App. 

599    1107,  1123 

Burkhardt  v.  Schmidt,  10  Pliila. 

(Pa.)    118,  31  Leg.  Int.  92    .  .      357 
Burkhart,    Longbridge,    147    Ky. 

457,  144  S.  W.  65   .  .  ." .      383 
V.  Scott.  69  W.  Va.  694,  72 

S.  E.  784   1045,  1075 

Burleigh  v.  Palmer,  74  Xeb.  122, 
12  Ann.  Cas.  777,  103  X.  W. 

1068    1037 

Burleigh  Bldg.  Co.  v.  IMerchant 
Brick,  etc.,  Co.,  13  Colo.  App. 

455,  59  Pac.  S3 854 

Burling   v.    King,    46    How.    Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    452    681,     726 

V.  King,  2  Thomp.  &  C.   (X. 

Y.)    545    742 

Burnap  v.  Albert,  Taney  244,  4 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  2,170    .  . 

532,     635 
V.  Marsh,  13  111.  538  .  .  524,     525 
Burnell  v.  Weld,  59  Me.  423   .  .      529 
Burnes  v.  Scott,  117  U.  S.  582, 
6  S.  Ct.  865,  29  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 

991   684,     686 

Burnette,  Re,  70  Kan.  229,  78 

Pac.  440  ..  1293,  1308,  1310 
Re,  73  Kan.  609,  85  Pac. 
575  .  .  1288,  1311,  1312, 

1324,  1327,  1328 
V.  Elliott.  72  Kan.  624,  84 

Pac.  374 563,  565,  567 

Burnham,  Re,  58  Misc.  576,  109 

X.   Y.   S.  988    621 

V.  llescdton,  82  Me.  495,  20 
Atl.  80,  9  L.R.A.  90   .  . 

273,  602,  740,     919 
V.  lleselton.  84  Me.  578,  24 

Atl.    9.-)5     653 

V.  Rob.Tfs.    VO    111.    I'l    232 

V.  Ti/anl.    :!1     \eh.    7S1,   4S 

.\.    W  .    S2:;    907 

Rurns  v.  All.ii.    15   1!.   L  .■!2.  23 
1::14  Atl.  35.  2  Am.  St.  iU'p. 

S19  £44.612,615,620,783,     952 


280 
954 
29 
949 
522 
621 
773 
837 

1253 

802 

518 
042 
1177 
118 
857 


227 

452 
646 


904 


999 


39  S 


670 


126(i 


TAIJLE    OF    CASES. 


Lxix 


[References  ai 

Burns  v.  Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.,  258 

111.  302,  101  N.  E.  551  lOKI 
V.  Sco<j<Tin,  16  Fed.  734  .  .  774 
V.  Staaeke,   (Tex.)  53  o.  W. 

354    778 

V.  Wilson,  28  Can.  Sup.  Ct. 

207    268 

Burnsicle  v.   Terry,   51   Ca.    186 

184,  186,     209 
Burpee   v.   Townsend,    29    Misc. 

681,  61  N.  Y.  S.  467  ..1076,  1078 
Burr,  Ex  p.,  2  Cranch  (C.  C.) 
379,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,186, 
9  Wheat  529,  6  U.  S.  ( L.  ed. ) 
152  ..  32,  1108,  1172,  1175, 
1231,   1281,   1282,   1293,   1294, 

1310,     1330 
Burr,    Re,    1    Wheel    Crim.     (N. 

Y.)    503    4,  5,   1289,   1317 

Burr's     Case,     1     Wheel.     Crim. 

(N.  Y.)    503    614,  1305 

Burrage  v.  Bristol  Couiitv,  210 
Mass.   299,    96   N.   E.   7^19    .. 

1168,  1171,   1180,  1322 
Burraston   v.   Nephi    First   Nat. 
Bank,   22    Utah    328,    62    Pac. 

425    341 

Burris,  Re,  101  Cal.  624.  36  Pac. 
101    .  .   1200,  1210,  1211,  1212, 

1219,  1332,  1335,     1337 
Burrows  v.  McCalley,  17  Wash. 

269,  49  Pac.  508 599 

Burrus,  Re,  97  Fed.  920,  3  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  296 819 

Burton,  Re,  76  Neb.  752,  107  N. 

W.    1015    39 

Re,   [1903]  2  K.  B.    (Eng.) 

300,  72  L.  J.  K.  B.  752  1320 

V.  Hynson,  14  Ark.  32 561 

V.  Perrv,  146  111.  71,  34  N. 

E.  "^60    685 

V.  State,  75  Ind.  477 146 

V.  Wiley,   26   Vt.   430    626 

V.  Wynne,  55  Ga.  015 128 

Busey   v.   Hardin,     2     B.     Mon. 

(Ky.)    407    296,     297 

Bush  V.  Busli,  46  Ind.  70  .  .  427,     439 
V.  Halsted,    121    App.    Div. 
(N.  Y.)   538,  106  N.  Y. 

S.  133   294,  296     297 

V.  McComb,  2  Houst.  (Del.) 
546    ...    154,    155,    159, 

161,     197 
V.  Miller,  13  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

481    433 


e  to  pages.] 

J5usii  V.  O'Brien,  164  N.  Y.  210, 

58  N.   E.   106    384 

V.  Prescott,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  8.'i 
Ark.  210,  103  S.  W.  176 

808,  811.     812 
V.  Southern  Brewing  Co.,  (i9 
Miss.    200,    13    So.    856 

893,     894 
V.  State,  62  Neb.  128,  86  N. 

W.   1062    1102.     1111 

V.  Visant,  40  Ark.  124 484 

BusAX'ell  V.  O.  W.  Kerr  Co.,  112 
Minn.  388,  21    Ann.  Cas.  837, 

128  N.  W.  459   340 

Butciier  v.  Chidester,  68  W.  Va. 

488,  69  S.  E.  1009 301 

V.  Hoffman,    99    Mo.     App. 

239,  73   S.  W.   266 643 

V.  Quinn,  86  App.  Div.  391, 

83  N.  Y.  S.  700 241 

Butchers'  Union,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Crescent  City  Live-Stock,  etc., 
Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  355,  6  So. 
508     .  .     838,    970,    971,    972, 

979,   991,   994,    1035,    1037,     1225 
Butler  V.  Butler,  73  S.  C.  402,  53 

S.   E.  646    849 

V.  Fayerweather,     91      Fed. 
458,  63  U.  S.  App.  120, 

33  C.  C.  A.  625    211 

V.  General  Accident  Assur. 
Corp.,  103  App.  Div. 
273,  16  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas. 
201,  92  N.  Y.  S.  1025.  .  880 
V.  Goreley,  146  U.  S.  303, 
13  S".  Ct.  84,  36  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  981  ....  244,  245 
V.  Jones,  7  How.  (Miss.) 
587,  40  Am.  Dec.  82.  . 

367,     503 
V.  King,    (Tenn.)    48   S.   W. 
697     .  .    782,    784,    786, 

787,  788,  789,     790 
V.  Legro,  62  N.  H.  350,   13 
Am.    St.    Rep.    573     .  . 

665,  676,  760 
V.  Mitchell,  15  Wis.  355..  895 
V.  Morse,  66  N.  H.  429,  23 

Atl.    90    267,     562 

V.  People,  2  Colo.  295    1205 

Butler  Paper  Co.  v.  J.  L.  Regan 

Printing  Co..  35  111.  App.  152     313 
Buttery  v.  Wright,  (la.)   117  N. 

W.   31    608 

Buttlar  V.  Buttlar,  70  N.  J.  Eq. 

675.  64  Atl.  110  847 

Buttrick  v.  Gilman,  22  Wis.  356     880 


Ixx 


TAULE    OF     CASKS. 


[Rt'foreiices 

Butts  V.  Carv,  143  App.  Div. 
350,  128  X.'Y.  S.  5;J3    .  .    72(5. 

1026  1085 
Butts     County     v.     Bloodworth, 

127   Ga.  141,   56   S.   E.   ]()(>..    1119 
Buxton   V.   Lietz,   136   N.   Y.   S. 

829     23,       26 

Byerlv,  Re.  ]28  F«l.  637,  12  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  186 S]0 

Byers  v.  Fowler,  14  Ark.  86   .  .      377 
V.  Surget,  19  How,  303,  15 
U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   670   ... 

293.     290 
Byford   v.    Girton,    90    la.    661, 

57   N.    W.    588    859 

Byington  v.  Moore,  62  la.  470, 

17  N.  W.  644  ...  299,  303 
V.  Moore,  70  la.  206,  30  N. 
W.  485  ..  1283,  1286, 

1287,  1331 

Byrd  v.  Odem,  9  Ala.  755    674 

V.  State,     1     How.     (Miss.) 

247    1122 

Byrne   v.   Alas,   68   Cal.    479,    9 

Pae.   850    460 

V.  Jeffries,     38     Miss.     533     416 
V.  Stewart,    3    Desaus.    (S. 

C.)   466   16,       17 

Byrnes  v.  Palmer,  18  App.  Div. 
1,  26  Civ.  Proc.  382,  45  N.  Y. 
S.  479,  amrmed  160  N.  Y.  699, 
55   N.   E.   1G93    556 


C ,  Re,  5  British  Columbia 

530    109 

Cabell   V.  Cabell,  1  IMetc.    (Ivy.) 

333  723 

Cable,   Re,    114    App.   Div.    375, 

99  N.  Y.  S.  1096  .  .  262,  793,  796 
Cable  Co.  v.  Parantha,  118  (ia. 

913,  45  S.  E.  787    345 

Caliot,  The,  V.  McDonald,  Newh. 

348,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  8,759  1080 
Caccia  V.    Iscfkc,   ]23   Ap]).  Div. 

779,  108  N.  Y.  S.  542  .  .  574,  781 
860,  862,  863,  918,  919 
Ca<li-an    v.  Craiitrcc,   192   Mas.s. 

233,   78    X.    E.    412    349 

(-'adillaf  State  Hank   v.  We.xfonl 

Circuit  .Iiidgc,  139    .Micli.   126, 

102    N.   W.   667    314 

Ca.iniati  v.  .Markic,  76  .Mich.  448 

43   N.   \V.   315,  5    I..K..\.   707^     760 


are  to  pages.] 

Cady  v.  Fair  Plain  literary 
Assoc.,  135  .Mich.  295, 
97  N.  W.  680,  10  De- 
troit   Leg.    N.    725     .  . 

307,     475 
v.  Walker,  62  Mich.  157,  28 
N.  W.  805,  4  Am.  St.  Rep. 

834    183 

Case  V.  Wilkinson,  3  Smedes  & 

M.    (Miss.)    223    990 

Cage's  Case,  Style  (Eng.)  129  501 
Cagvvin  v.  Ball,  2  111.  App.  70  005 
Cahill,  Re,  60  N.  J.  L.  527,  50 

Atl.    119     1245,  1316 

V.  Baird,    138    Cal.    691,   72 
Pae.   342,   reversing   70 
Pac.  1061    .  .    795,  869.     944 
V.  Benn,   6   Binn.    (Pa.)    99     489 
V.  Cahill,    9   Civ.   Pro.    (N. 

Y.)    1014 

V.  Dickson,  (Tex.)  77  S.  W. 

281    731,     921 

Cain  V.  Hockensmith,  etc.,  Co., 
157  Fed.  92  ..728,  734, 

735.   977,   1010,  1022 
V.  ]Moore,     54     Wash.     627, 

103  Pac.  1130 724, 

720.  705,  918,  920,     955 
V.  Sullivan,    ]Minor     (Ala.) 

31    .. 415 

V.  Warford.  33  j\Id.  23 739 

Caines    v.    Gardner,    11    Johns. 

(N.    Y.)     89     470 

Caines'  Case,  3  Johns.  Cas.   (2d 

ed.   N.  Y.)    499    38 

Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Koerner,  3 

111.   App.   248    242,     243 

Cake  V.   Olmstead,   1   Am.  L.  J. 

N.    S.    (Pa.)     169    393 

Calder  v.  Law  Society,  9  British 

Columbia    56    60 

Caldwell  V.  Bigger.  70  Kan.  49, 
!)0     Pac.     1095      ..231, 

249,  298,     306 
V.  Davis,    10    Colo.    481,    15 
Pac.    090,     3    Am.    St. 

Rep.  599    179 

V.  Meltvcldt,  93   la.  730,  61 

\.   \V.    1090 208 

V.  Siicpherd.   ()   T.    B.   Mon. 
(Ky.)    389    ..675,   685, 

701,   760,     9GG 
V.  Shields,     (Tenn.)     53    S. 

\V.  1 094 952 

Calcv  V.  Morgan,   114   Ind.  350, 
10  N.  E.  790   497 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


LxxL 


1  References 

Calhoun  v.  Akelev,  82  Minn. 
354,    85    N.    W.    170.. 

701,   700,  930,     !)G2 
California    &    Nortlicrn    R.    Co. 
V.   State,  1  Cal.   App.   142,  81 

Pac.    971     1151 

Calkins  v.  Pease,   125   111.  App. 

270    (JG9.  740,     704 

Callahan    v.    Sliotwell,    00    Mo. 

308   371.  801.  802,     905 

Callaway     v.     Equitable     Trust 
Co.,   07   N.   J.   L.   44,   50   Atl. 

900    353,     358 

Callender    v.     Turi)in,     (Teiin.) 

01    S.   W.    1057    784.   881,     900 

Callihan  v.  Quiglev,  0  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.   494    ' 385 

Calmes    v.    Stone,    7    La.    Ann. 

133 481 

Calvort  V.   Coxe,   1    Gill.    (Md.) 
95    .  .701,  709,  781,  809,  873, 

931.     932 
Cambrelleng  v.   Purton,    125   N. 

Y.  010    .'. 557 

Camden   v.   McCov,   48    W.   Va. 

377,  37   S.  E.  037    724,     705 

Cameron  v.  Poeser,  200  Til.  84, 
05  N.  E.  090,  93  Am. 
St.  Rep.  105,  atlirming 
102  111.  App.  049  .. 
736,      737,      755,     977, 

1040,   1050 
V.  Clarke,     11     Ala.     259.  . 

519,  574,  575,     599 
V.  Lewis,   50   Misc.   70.   001 

282,   203,   200,     300 
V.  Stratton,     14     111.    App. 

270 . . 303,  360. 375.  379,     501 
Sun    V.    McAnaw.    72    ]\Io. 

App.   196    .523,     544 

Cameto,  Re,  Mvro  Proh.    (Cal.) 

75   ' 454 

Camors  v.  Losch.  Mann.  ITnre'i. 

Cas.    (La.)    95    375,     370 

Campbell,    Re,   32    U.    C.   Q.    B. 

444    ]  222 

V.  Arcenaux,     3     La.     Ann. 

558     410.     430 

V.  Benjamin,  09  111.  244   ..      208 
V.  Boggs,  48  Pa.  St.  524.  . 

591.    59-\   005,      600 
V.  Bristol.     19     Wend.     (X. 

Y.)     101     439,     444 

V.  Brown.   2   Woods   340,   4 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  2.355    .  .      530 
V.  Canon,  Add.    (Pa.)    207.      250 


are  to  pages.] 

Campbell    v.   Cothran,   56  N.  Y. 
279,  aflirming  65  Barb. 
534,  1  Thomp.  &   C.  70     545 
V.  Dennis,    2    Tex.    Unrep. 

Cas.  450    800' 

V.  Fayette    County,    0    Pa. 

Co.  Ct.  132   .; 480 

V.  Galbrcath,   5   Watts    (Pa.) 

423    414.  431,      438- 

V.  Coddard,     17     111.     App. 

385     787,     920- 

V.  Goodman,  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

009   244 

V.  Grove,  2  Johns.  Cas.   (X. 

Y.)    105   1080- 

V.  Kincaid,    3    T.    B.    Mon. 
(Ky.)     09     ..244,    246, 

802,  803.     807 
V.  Maple,    105    Pa.    St.    304 

059,     960 
V.  Provident  Sav.  etc.,  Soc, 
(Tenn.)    61  S.  W.  1090 

702,     842 
v.  Roe,  32  Neb.  345,  49  N. 

W.   452    005 

v.  Smith,   9   Wis.   305    473 

V.  Spencer,  1  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)     199 472 

v.  State,    (Ala. I    02   So.   57     145 

V.  Swascy,   12  Ind.  70    150' 

v.  Wilson,    2    Mackey     (D. 

C.)     497     '. 004 

V.  Worman,    58    ]\Iinn.    501, 

60   N.   W.    608    777 

Campbell's   Appeal,    29    Pa.    St. 

401,   72   Am.   Dec.   041    ..497.     498 
Canada    v.    Territorv,    12    Okla. 

409,   72   Pac.   375" 1122 

Canarv  v.  Russell,  10  Misc.  597, 
24  Civ.  Proc.  109.  31  N.  Y.  S. 

291   070,  990,  1016,  104.3 

Candee    v.     Cunneen,     92     App. 

Div.  71.  80  N.  Y.  S.  723   1146 

Cane   v.   Allen,    2    Dow.    (Eng.) 

289    283 

V.  i\Iartin,   2   Beav.    (Eng.) 

584    ^  .      974 

Caniff  V.  Myers,   15  Johns.    ( N. 

Y.)    246    .' 328,     434 

Cannev    v.    Cannev.    131     Mich. 
303,*  01    N.  W.  620,  9  Detroit 

Leg.   N.   350    1023,   1034 

Cannon  v.  Sanford,  20  Mo.   Apj). 

590  004 

Canterberrv    v.    Com.     1     Dana 

(Kv.)    416    500' 


Ixxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Cantrell     v.     Chism,     5     Siieed  Carp  v.  Queen  Ins.  Co.,  203  Mo. 

(Tcnn.)    116.  .308,  704,  295,  101  S.  W.  78 642, 

795,  94!),     952  Carpenter    v.    Allen,    45    Super. 

V.  Ford,    (Tenn.)    40  S.  W.  Ct.    (N.   Y.)    323    .... 

581    1004  V.  Ashley,    148    Cal.   422,    7 


Cantv    V.    Latterner,    31     ^linn. 

239,  17  N.  W.  385.. G04,  728,     735 
Cape  May,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Jolin- 

son,  35  X.  J.  Eq.  422    629 

Capet  V.  Parker,  3  Sandf.  (N. 

Y.)  662  629 

Capitol     Invest.,     etc.,     Assoc, 

Ostrander,  v.,  130  Mich.  312, 

89  X.  W.  964 836 

Caples  V.    State,   3   Okla.   Crini. 

72,   104   Pac.  493,   494    ..272, 

1190,  1207 
Card  V.  Dawes  County,  71  Neb. 

788.   99    X.   W.   662    ..    1J19 


Ann.  Cas.  601,  83  Pac. 

444 

V.  Cummings,  20  Misc.  661, 

46    X.    Y.    S.   252    

V.  Dane  County,  9  Wis.  274 
V.  Gibson,    82    Vt.    336,    73 

Atl.  1030 921. 

V.  Coin,  19  X.  H.  479, 

V.  Myers,  90  Midi.  209.  51 

N.  W.  206    

V.  Oakland,  30  Cal.  439  .  . 
V.  Sour     Lake     First     Xat. 

Bank,     53      Tex.      Civ. 

App.  23,  114  S.  W.  904 


V.  Walbridge,    18   Ohio   411     359       Carr,   Re,    116   Fed.  556,  8   Am. 


Bankr.  Rep.  635    

Re,    117    Fed.    574.    9    Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  58    

V.  Benedict,  48  Ga.  431    . . 

V.  District    Court,    147    la. 

663,    Ann.    Cas.    191 3D 

378,    126    X.   \V.   791  . . 

V.  Glover,  70  Mo.  App.  242 

517, 

V.  Hooper,  48  Kan.  253,  29 

Pac.  398    

v.  State,      81      Ind.      342.. 

1151, 

V.  Weld.  19  X.  J.  Eq.  319.. 

Carrett    v.    Smallpage,    9    East. 

(Eng.)  330 

Carriere  v.  Minturn,  5  Cal.  435 


Garden  v.  Garden.  (Tenn.)  37 

S.  W.  1022 1034 

Carder  v.  Primm.  52  ]\Io.  App. 

102   606 

Carey  v.  Carey,  108  X.  C.  267, 

12  S.  E.   1038    184 

V.  Gnant,  59  Barb.   (X.  Y.) 

574     793,     805 

Cargile  v.  Ragan,  (Jo  Ala.  287.  .      311 
Carhart   v.    Allen,    56    Fla.    763, 

48   So.   47    773,     774 

Carleton,  Re,  33  Mont.  431,  84 
Pac.    788,    114    Am.    St.    Rep. 

826    1307 

Carlisle  v.  Barnes,  102  App. 
Div.  573,  92  X.  Y.  S. 
917   ....   793,  794,  796,     797       Carrig,  Re,  36  Misc.  612,  73  X. 

V.  Gibbs,  44  Tex.  Civ.  App.  Y.  S.  1123 803. 

189,    98    S.    W.    192    ..      731       Carrington      v.      Holabird,      17 

V.  State,   73   Miss.   387,    19  Conn.  530   

So.    207     1107,   1122       Carroll,  Re,  [1902 J  2  Ch.  (Eng.) 

Carlock,  Ft.  W'orth,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
33  Tex.  Civ.  App.  202,  75   S. 

W.    931     103 

Carlton    v.    Dustiti,   9    Oliio    Dec. 
(Iteiuint)      51,     10     (inc.     L. 

Bui.  294    747 

Carniicliacl    v.    I'cndleton.    Diul. 

((in.)    173   540 

Carnal  v.   Peoj)!!',    1    I'urk  (rim. 

(X.  Y.)    262    n  16 

Carnrs    v.    Piatt,   36   Super.    Ct. 

.•!61.   15  Al).   Pr.  X.  S.  .•!:!7    .  .       I'ti: 
Curotlicrs   V.    Waltdii,    iTcs.i     1 

S.  W.  79    878 


Chanib.     (Out. 


i;e,    2    C 

323    

V.  Draughon,  154  Ala.  4:!0, 

45    So.    919 1024. 

V.  S]iiai:uc,  59  (  al.  (>r^'i .  .  .  . 

165. 

Carroll  Countv  v.  Cheatlinm,  4S 

Mo.  385  :'.(;2. 

V.  P(dlard,     17     Ind.     Ai)p. 

470,  46  X.  E.  1012   .  .  . 

Carsciii    V.    Fogg.   34    Wnsli.   44S, 

Ti;    I'ac.    112    724,   731. 

Carstciis  V.  Barnsti>rt.  11  Al)b. 
Pr.  X.  S.  (X.  Y.)  442  ..  .. 


643 
435 

118 

681 
715 

936 
362 

1075 
444 


824 


825 
529 


629 
587 
132 

1 1 56 

207 

527 
774 

1018 
327 
615 
613 

1 029 
187 
364 

1125 
765 
519 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


ixxm 


[References 

Carstens  v.  Schnialliolz,  16  Daly 

20,   8   N.   Y.   S.  ;V2U    404 

Carter,  Re,  1   Phila.    (Pa.)    507, 

11    Leg.   Int.   210    1243 

V.  Bennett,    0    Fla.    214    .. 

780,   802,   985,  1054 
V.  Baldwin,  95  Cal.  475,  30 

Pac.    595     . . .913,    917,     948 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  130 
Mo.    App.    719,    119    S. 

VV.   35    813,   954,  1042 

V.  Cooper,   111   Va.  602,   69 

S.   E.   944    385 

V.  Davis,  8  Fla.  183  ..1030,  1054 
V.  Lyman,  33  Miss.  171  . .  562 
V.  New     Orleans,     5     Rob. 

(La.)    238    779 

V.  Palmer,      8      CI.      &      F. 

(Eng.)    657    293 

V.  Roland,  53  Tex.  540  . .  378 
V,  Talcott,     10     Vt.     471.. 

373,   394,   409,     945 
V.  West.  93  Ky.  211,  19  S. 

W.  592  ..155,  167,  190,     284 
Cartier    v.    Spooner,     118    App. 
Div.  342,   103  N.  Y.  S.  505.. 

COl,  609,  618,  619,  620,     624 
Cartwcll  V.  Menifee,  2  Ark.  356 

230,   424,  426.     435 
Cavtwriglit    v.     Cartwright,    20 

W.  R.    (Eng.)    684 335 

V.  Everett,    7    Hawaii   216.      268 

V.  Jones,   13   Tex.   1    500 

Caruthers,   Re,    158   N.   Y.   131, 

52   N.  E.  742    58,       84 

Carver  v.  J.  S.  Maffield  Lumber 
Co.,  29  Tex.   Civ.  App. 
434,  68  S.  W.  711    ...      779 
V.  U.    S.,    7    Ct.    CI.    499.. 

239,  254,  202,  797,     806 
Cary  v.  Carv.  97  App.  Div.  471, 

89  'n.  Y.  S.  1061   ..263,     798 
V.  Western  Union  Tel.  Co., 
47   Hun   610,   15   N.  Y. 

St.    Rep.   204    880 

Casar    v.    Sargeant,    7    Ta.    317 

804.  995,  1040 
Casca.rella    v.    National    Grocer 
Co.,  151  Mich.  15,  114  N.  W. 

857   647 

Case  V.   Carroll.   35   N.   Y.   385 

293,  296,  303 
V.  Case,  103  111.  App.  177  847 
V.  Hawkins,  52  Miss.  702.  498 
V.  Hotnhkiss.    1     Abb.    Dee. 

(N.   Y.)    324    944 


are  to  pages.] 

Case  V.  Hotchkiss,  3  Keyes   (N. 

Y. )     334    944 

V.  Rannev,    (]\Iich. )    140  N. 

W.   943    603 

V.  Shawnee  Countv,  4  Kan. 
511,    96    Am. 'Dec.    190 

713,     714 
Casey  v.  March,  30  Tex.   180.. 

988,    1006,    1034,   1035 

V.  State,   25   Tex.  380    1324 

Caspar!  v.  New  Jerusalem  First 
German  Church,  12  Mo.  App. 

314   273 

Cass  County  v.  Ross,  46  Hid.  404  235 
Cassels  v.  Usry,  51  Ga.  621.  . . . 

342,     415 
Casserleigh   v.   Green,    28    Colo. 
392,  65  Pac.  32,  affirm- 
ing 12   Colo.  App.  515, 

50   Pac.    189    830,     882 

V.  Wood.  14  Colo.  App.  205, 

59  Pac.   1024    075 

V.  Wood,   119   Fed.   308,   56 

C.  C.  A.  212    675 

Casteberry,   Re,   143   Fed.   1018, 

16   Am!^   Bankr.   Rep.   159    ..     819' 
Castner    v.    Gray,     (Colo.)     131 

Pac.  404  .  .  .^ 563 

Castro  V.  Bennet,  2  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  296 242,  243 

Casucci    V.    Alleghany    &    K.    R. 
Co.,   65   Hun  452,  29  Abb.   N. 
Cas.   252.   20   N.   Y.    S.  343..    1077 
Caten  v.   Eagle  Bldg.,   etc.,   As- 
soc,   177    Fed.    996,    23    Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.   130    822 

Catliers  v.  Linton,  75  Neb.  420. 

100    N.   W.   408    887,     9,55 

Catlin  v.  Allen,  17  Vt.  158  ..  .329 
Cator  v.  Collins,  2  Mo.  App.  225  539 
Catron,  Re,  8  N.  M.  253,  43  Pac. 

724     1307 

V.  Com.  140  Ky.  01,  130  S. 

W.    951     .■ 1107.  1123 

Cattus.  Re.  42  App.  Div.  134,  59 

N.  Y.  S.  55    614 

Catzen  v.  Belcher,  64  W.  Va. 
314,  10  Ann.  Cas.  715,  01  S. 
E.  930,  131  Am.  St.  Rep.  903. 
Ove'-ruling    Sisk    v.    Hurst,    1 

W.  Va.  53    033.     050 

Candle  v.  Rice.  78  Ga.  81.  3  S. 

E.    7    1054,   1056 

Caulker  v.  Banks.  3  IMart.  N.  S. 

532    327 

Causey  v.   Wiley,   27   Ga.   444.. 

154,     330 


Ixxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Keferences  are  to  pages.] 


Cautlien   v.   Cauthen,    76    S.    E. 
226,  56  S.  E.  978    ...364.  500, 

845,     846 
Cavanaugh     v.     Robinson,     138 
Mich.  ^^554,    101    N.   W.   824.. 

723,  764,  767,  876 
Cavender  v.  Smith,  1  la.  306..  208 
Caverly  v.   McOwen,   123   Mass. 

574    548,  787,     940 

V.  McOwen,   126   Mass.   222 

944,     945 
Cavilland  v.  Yale,  3  Cal.  108,  58 

Am.  Dec.   388    549,     583 

Ceccato  v.  Deutschman,  19  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  434,  47   S.  W.   739     907 
Cecil  V.  Clark,  69   W.  Va.  641, 

72  S.  E.  737    782 

Celina  v.  Eastport  Sav.  Bank,  68 
Fed.  401,  37  U.  S.  App.  164. 

15    C.   C.   A.   495    561 

Celluloid  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Chandler, 

27  Fed.  9    784,   785,  860,     861 

Center   v.   Springs,   2   Iowa   393 

639,  641 
Center    Tp.    v.    Marion    County, 

110  Ind.  579,  10  N.  E.  291.'.      562 
Central   Branch   Union   Pac.   R. 
Co.     V.     Andrews,     41 
Kan.  370,  21   Pac.  276     329 
V.  Nichols,   24    Kan.   242 .  . 

936,  938.     940 
V.  Shoup,   28   Kan.   394.   42 
Am.    Rep.    163     ..340, 

348,     477 
Central  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Sacramen- 
to County,   61   Cal.  250    1160 

Central   R.,  etc.,   Co.  v.   Pettus, 
113   U.  S.   110,   5   S.   Ct.  387, 

28  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    915    ..673, 

842,  843,  977,  1029,  1022.  1060 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Folsom,  26 

App.  Div.  40,  49  \.  Y. 

S.  670  .  .364,  365,  36(1,  369 
V.  Incorsoll,    87     Fed.    427, 

59   IT.   S.   App.  242,   31 

C.    C.    A.    41     233,     780 

V.  Milwaukcf"     St.     R.     Cn , 

74  Fed.  442,  ..10,  116,  117 
V.   Ricliinnnd,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

105  Vc<].  son,  45  C.  C. 

A.    (W     1052 

V.  Wfst  iiulia  Imji.  ("()..  Hi!) 
N.  Y.  314,  62  N.  E. 
387.  rcvcrsin'^f  48  App. 
Div.  147,  63  N.  Y.  S. 
853    269 


Cerny   v.    Paxton,   etc.,   Co.,   83 

Neb.   88,    119   N.   W.    14    224 

Chadsey,  Re,  141  App.  Div.  458, 
126  N.  Y.  S.  456,  affirmed  201 
N.    Y.    572,    95    N.    E.     1124 

1232,   1296,   1318,   1319 
Chadwick    v.    Knox,    31   N.    H. 

226,   64   Am.    Dee.   329     752 
v.  Manning,     7     N.     Y.     S. 

623   378 

V.  Upton,    3    Pick.    (Mass.) 

442    .328,  453,     541 

Chaffey  v.  Dexter,   (Cal.)  4  Pac. 

980    406,     407 

Chaffee  v.  Thomas,  7  Cow.    (N. 

Y.)    358    328 

Chahoon  v.  Com.,  21  Gratt.  Va. 

822  .  .  . .      222 

Chain  v.  Hart,  140  Pa.  St.  374, 

21  Atl.  442    881,     945 

C.  H.  Albers  Commission  Co.  v. 
Spencer,  236  Mo.  608,  Ann. 
Cas.    191 2D    705,    139    S.    W. 

321    857 

Chalfants  v.  Martin,  25  W.  Va. 

394,    397    501 

Chaltield  v.  Simonson,  92  N.  Y. 

209   518 

Chalmers  v.  Hack,  19  Me.  124.  .     469 
v.  Tandy,  111  111.  App.  252 

492,     493 
Chamberlain  v.  Grimes,  42  Neb. 

701.  60  N.  W.  948 685 

V.  Hedgor,  10  S.  D.  290,  73 

N.    W.    75    266 

V.  Rodffers.    79    Mich.    219, 

44'"  N.  W.  598  781, 

787,  789,  891,  916,  936 
V.  Saginaw.  135  Mich.  61, 

97  N.  W.  156  131 

V.  Williamson.    2    M.    &    S. 

(Eng.)    408    591 

Chambers   v.  Gilmore.    193   Fed. 

635,    113   C.    C.   A.   503     242" 
V.  Hodges,    23    Tex.    104.  . 

450,     531 
V.  Mason,  5  C.  B.  N.  S.  59, 
94  E.  C.  L.  59.  5  Jur. 
N.  S.  148,  28  L.  J.   C. 

PI.    10    40ff 

V.  Miller,    7    Watts     (Pa.) 

(13    392.  393,     501 

V.  State,  3  Ilumpli.  (Tenn.) 

2.37    1101 

V.  Iij)ton,    34    Fed.    !73 626 

Champagne  v.  Benoit  (K.  1.)   78 

Atl.    1009    1228- 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


Ixxv 


[References 

Champaign  County  Treasurer  v. 

Norton,   1   Ohio  270    489 

Champion,  Re,  24  Oi<la.  154,  10;5 

Pac.  600    11!)2 

V.  McCarthy,  228  111.  87,  10 
Ann.  Cas.  517,  81  N. 
E.  808,  11  L.R.A.(N. 
S.)     1052     ..103,    200, 

205,     210 
V.  State,  3  Coldw.    (Tenn.) 

Ill    SO 

Champion    Iron    Fence    Co.    v. 
V.  Wernsing,   19   111.  App.   42 

307,     475 
Champlin    v.    Fonda,    4    Johns. 

Ch.    (N.    Y.)     62    470 

Chandler,    Re,    105    Mich.    235, 

63  N.  W.  69    1303 

V.  McPherson,   11    Ala.   916     632 
Channing  v.  Moore,  11  N.  Y.  St. 

Rep.    670    1055 

Chapel   V.    Hull.    60    Mich.    167, 

26    N.   W.    874    629 

Chapman,   Re,   27   Kun   573 212 

V.  Austin,    44    Tex.    133    ..      443 
V.  Burt,    77   111.  337    .  .376, 

599,     608 
V.  Chevis,    9    Leigli     (Va.) 

297    504 

V.  Cowles,  41  Ala.  103.  91 
Am.  Dec.  508  ..391, 

392,  395 
V.  Hughes,  134  Cal.  641.  58 
Pac.  298.  60  Pac.  974, 

60  Pac.  982  268 

V.  Lothrop,    39    Me.    431  .  .      40(» 
V.  ]\Iunson,     3     Paige     (N. 

Y.)     347    '. 852 

V.  Peebles.    84    Ala.    283,    4 

So.   273    201 

V.  Phillips,  8  Pick    (Mass.) 

25    541 

V.  Raymond,    8   Johns.    (X. 

Y.)     300    470 

V.  Snecd,     17     Tex.     428.. 

1026,  1030 
Chappell  V.  Bonn,  21   Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    17    ]ono 

V.  Hawkins,   30  La.  756...      600 
V.  Real  Estate  Pooling  Co., 
89    Md.    258,    201.    42 

Atl.    936    24 

Charboneau    v.    Orton.    43    Wis. 

96    840 

Charlebois  v.  Bourassa,  5  Mon- 
treal Super.  Ct.  423 534 


are  to  pages.] 

Charles    v.    Eshelman,    5    Colo. 

107    894 

Charles   City   Plow,   etc.,  Co.   v. 
Jones,   7f  la.  235,   32  N.   \V. 

280    626,     627 

Charles  Stark  Co.,  Re,  15  Ont. 

Pr.  471    307 

Charleston  v.  Cadle,  167  111.  647, 

49  N.  E.  192    150 

Chase,    Re,    41    Hun    203,    4    N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  195 212 

V.  Chase,   163   Ind.   178,   71 

N.    E.    485    230 

V.  Chase.   65   How    Pr.    (N. 

Y. )     300    907 

V.  Heaney,  70  111.  268 556 

V.  Omaha   L.   &   T.   Co.,   56 
Neb.  358,  76  N.  W.  896 

128,      129 
Chase's   Case,    1    Bland  206.    17 

Am.  Dec.  277    197,     223 

Chastain    v.    Lumphin,    134    Ga. 

219,  67  S.  E.  818   1034 

Chatfield    v.    Hewlett,    2    Dem. 

(N.  Y.)    191    264,     941 

V.  Simonson,  92  N.  Y.  209, 
affirming  10  Daly.  295 

947,     948 
Chatham    Nat.    Bank    v.    Tloch- 
stadter,   27   Alb.   L.   J. 
(N.    Y.)     133    ....300,     393 
V.  Hochstadter,      11     Daly. 

343  .".   518 

Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Jackson,  86  Ga.  676,  13  S.  E. 

109  336,  339 

Chautauqua     County     Bank     v. 
Risley,    4    Den.    (N.   Y.)    480 

375,  380.     502 
Cheek  v.  Schwartz,  70  Ind.  339 

715,     768 
Cheetham     v.    McCormick,     178 

Pa.  St.  186,  35  Atl.  631    

1147,  1152,  1158 
Cheever  v.  Mirrick,  2  N.  H.  376  505 
Chemving  Canal  Bank  v.  Judson, 

10  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    133 474 

Chenango  Bank  v.  Hyde,  4  Cow. 

(N.   Y.)    567    68-2 

V.  Root,    4    Cow.     (N.    Y.) 

126  10 

Cheney   v.    Kelly.    95    Ala.    163, 

10  So. '664    732 

V.  Ricks,    168    111.    533,    48 

N.  E.  75   847,  860,     862; 


Ixxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ar 

Chesapeake,  etc.,  E.  Co.  v.  Com., 
100  Kv.  373,  38  S.  \V.  oOG,  18 

Ky.  L^Rep.  828 1149 

Cheshire  v.  Des  Moines  City  R. 
Co.,  153  la.  88,  133  N.  W. 

324    804,  997,  10]6 

V.  Tyler,  7  Jur.  (Eng.)   704     616 
Chester    v.    Apperson,    4    Heisk 

(Tenn.)    639    562 

V.  Jumel,  125  N.  Y.  237, 
26  N.  E.  297,  reversing 
53  Hun  629,  5  N.  Y.  S. 

809    667,   738,  739,     829 

V.  Schaffer,    24    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.  162   267,     270 

Chester    County    v.    Barber,    97 

Pa.   St.   455    ..674,   729,   742,     743 
Chevalon    v.    Schmidt,    11    Rob. 

(La.)   91   1176,  1272,  1305 

Chew  V.  Farmers'  Bank,  2  Md. 

Ch.  231    ..170,  171,  205,  211,     224 
Chicago  Bldg.  Soc.  v.  Haas,  111 

111.    176    493,     496 

Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  McMeen, 

70  111.  App.  220 341 

Chicago,   etc..   Coal   Co.   v.   Bal- 

mer,  45  111.  App.  59 451 

Chicago,   etc.,  R.   Co.  v.   Ander- 
son. ]30  S.  W.  182..  ..      150 
V.  Hitchcock      County,      60 

Neb.  722.  84  N.  W.  97  443 
V.  Kennedy.  70  111.  350  .  .  406 
V.  Lamed,- 26  Til.  218    .... 

709,  888,  889,  896.     903 
V.  Moshore,    21    Okla.    275, 
17    Ann.    Cas.    277,    96 

Pac.   630    853 

V.  Pierce,   OS    111.   App.   .368 

630,     646 
V.  Woodson,    no  Mo.   App. 

208,  85  S.  W.  105 245 

Cliicago,    etc..    Traction    Co.    v. 
Flaliertv,   222   111.   67,   78   N. 

E.   29    ! 371,     709 

Chicago  Fair  d rounds  Assoc,  v. 

IV'Dple,  60   111.  App.  488    1158 

Cliii'ago  Gen.  R.  Co.  v.  INlurrav, 

174    III.  259,  51    N.  E.  245    .' .      480 
Cliicago  i'ub.  Stock  Exch.  v.  Mc- 
Clauglirv,    50    111.    App.    3.58, 

242,    258.    259,     265 
Chicago    Sugar- lietining    CV).    v. 
.lacksoii    Bi'cwiiig    Co.,    48    S. 

W.   275    269 

Chicago  Title,  etc.,  Co.  v.  SmiMi, 

185   Mass.  366,  70  N.  E.  426     446 


e  to  pages.] 

Chicago   Union   Traction   Co.  v. 
Ertrachter,    228    111.    114,    81 

N.    E.   816    331,    3.32,     333 

Child  V.  Dwight,   21   N.  C.   171     393 
V.  Eureka    Powder    Works, 

44  N.  H.  354    359 

Childers  v.  Wooler,  2  El.  &  El. 

287,  105  E.  C.  L.  287    526 

Childress    v.    Tate,    148    S.    W, 

843    180 

Childs    V.     Comstock,    69     App. 
Div.   160,   74   N.   Y.   S. 

643    549,   563,   569,     589 

V.  Littlefield,      206      Mass. 

113,  91  N.  E.  1017   ...     962 
V.  State,  4  Okla.  Crim.  474. 
113  Pac.  545,  33  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)      563      1097 

Chilhowie  Lumber  Co.  v.  Lance, 

50   W.  Va.  636,  41  S.  E.   128     418 
Chillicothe    Ferry,    etc.,    Co.    v. 

Jameson.    48   111.   281 164.     170 

Chillicothe  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 
McSwain,  93   S.  C.  30,  75   S. 

E.    1106    851,     859 

Chilton   V.   Cooke,   37   L.   T.   N. 

S.    (Eng.)    607    521 

V.  Willford,    2    Wis.    1,    60 

Am.  Dec.  399    405 

Chipman  v.  Cook,  2  Tyler   (Vt.) 

456      " 133 

Chirac  v.  Reinicker,  11  Wheat. 
280,    6    U.    S.     (L.    ed.)     474 

154,  155,  167.   193.     221 
Chittenden,  Re,  25  N.  Y.  Wkly. 

Dig.    403    611,     622 

Chitty,     Re,     2     Dowl.     (Eng.) 

421      592 

Choen  v.   State,  85   Ind.  209...    1121 
Cholmondeley     y.     Clinton,     19 
Ves.  Jr.    (Eng.)    261,  Coop.  t. 

Eld.  80    307 

Chorlton  v.  Lings,  L.  R.  4  C.  P. 

(Eng.)    374.   391,   392    47 

Chouteau  v.  U.  S.,  95  U.  S.  61, 

24  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    371    363 

Chown  y.  Parrott,  14  C.  B.  N. 
S.  74,  108  10.  C.  L.  74,  9  Jur. 
N.  S.  1290,  32  L.  J.  C.  PI. 
197,    8    L.    T.    N.    S.    3!)1,    11 

W\    R.   608    402 

Chrismas     y.     Russell,    2    ]\Ietc. 

(Ky.)    112    5:^6,     545 

Christ  V.  Chetwood,  1  Misc. 
418,  20  N.  Y.  S.  841,  allinned 
3  Misc.  614,  22  N.  Y.  S.  1133, 
3  Misc.  640,  23  N.  Y.  S.  1160     GOO 


TABLIi    OF    CASKS. 


Ixxvii 


[References 

Christian    v.    O'Neal,    40    ^liss. 

GG9     :i02,     .•JOG 

V.  Yarborough,    124    N.    U. 
72,  ;J2  S.  E.  .383   .  ..375, 

:}7G.     :J78 
Christian,   etc.,   Co.  v.  Coleman, 
125    Ala.    158,    27    So.    780.. 

415,     447 
Christianson,   Re,   175   Fed.  8G7, 

23  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  710   824 

Ciiristie  v.  Sawyer,  44  N.  H. 
298    ..389,  G02,  604.  008,  071, 

072,   870,   954,  977,   1030,   1045 
Christner   v.   Haves   Coiintv,    79 

Neb.   157,   112  ^N.  VV.  347 1119 

Christopher     v.     Newnliam,     34 

Fla.    370,    16    So.   274    465 

Christy     v.     Christy,     6     Paige 

(N.  Y.)    170    850 

V.  Douglas.  Wright    (Ohio) 

485    519,   701,   781,     838 

V.  Garrity,   (Ky.)   22  S.  W. 

158   147 

V.  Rice,  152  Mich.  563,  116 

N.  W.  200  646 

Churchill  v.  Bee,  60  Ga.  621..      780 
V.  Corker,  25  Ga.  479.  .193,     330 
Ciancimino's  Towing,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Ciancimino,      62      Hun      623 
mem.,  17  N.  Y.  S.  125    ..029,     630 
Cicottc  V.  Catholic,  etc..  Church, 
60   Mich.  552,  27   N.  W.   682 

779,   952,     954 
Cincinnati,   etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Lee, 

37    Ohio   St.   479    1124 

Cincinnati  Fourth  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Mayer,  90   Ga.   728,  24  S.  E. 

453    858 

Cincinnati  Sav.  Bank  v.  Benton. 

2  Met.  (Ky.)  240  902 

Cisna  v.  Beach,  15  Ohio  300, 

45  Am.  Dec.  576  245 

Citizens'  Loan,  etc.,  Assoc,  v. 
Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N. 
E.  1075,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  .320, 
7  L.R.A.  669   ..549,  551,  552, 

553,  554,  555,  556,     558 
Citizens'    Nat.    Bank    v.    Culver, 
54    N.    H.    327,    20    Am.    Rep. 

134    1061 

Citizens'  Trust,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ohio 
Valley  Tie  Co.,  138  Kv.  421, 

128   S.   W.   317    857 

Claflin  V.  DuBois,   13  Civ.  Rro. 

(N.  Y.)    234   472 

Clardv  v.  \Vilson,  24  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  196.  58  S.  VV.  52 339 


are  to  pages.] 

Clark,  Re,  108  App.  Div.  150,  95 
N.  Y.  S.  388,  aflirnied 
184  N.  Y.  222,  77  N.  E. 
1,  petition  of  reinstate- 
ment denied  128  App. 
Div.  348,  112  N.  Y.  S. 
777  ..082,  758,  1210, 
1255,   1307,  1317,  1333, 

1334,    1335,   1330,   1338 

Re,  32  Ont.  237    28,     10(> 

V.  Anderson,  11  N.  Y.  S.  729     135 

V.  Baldwin,  25   Kan.   120.  . 

640,     043 

V.  Brooklyn  El.  R.  Co.,  42 
Hun  G55  mem.,  5  N.  Y. 
St.   Rep.   52    781 

V.  Clark,     17     W.     N.     C. 

(Pa.)     400    609 

V.  Courser,  29  N.  H.  170.. 

355,     356 

V.  Ellsworth,  104  la.  442, 
73  N.  W.  1023  ..402 
464,  785,  790,  922,  925, 
926,  928,  929,  931,  935, 
936,  937,  939,  940,  941.     944 

V.  Eltinge,  38  Wash.  37G, 
80  Pac.  55G,  107  Am. 
St.    Rep.    858    337,     338 

V.  Ewing.  93  111.  572   ..561,     502 

V.  FiehC  12  Vt.  485    183 

V.  Grosh,  81  Misc.  407,  142 

N.   Y.   S.  906    663,     681 

V,  Holiday,    9    Mo.    711     .. 

431,     435 

V.  Kingsland,  1  Smed.  &  M. 

(Miss.)      248     388, 

391,    393,    451,     497 

V.  Lilliebridge.  45  Kan.  507, 

20  Pac.    43    233,     433 

V.  McGregor,  55  Mich.  412, 

21  N'.  W.  806   250 

V.  Miller.    88    Ky.    108,    10 

S.   W.   277    4G0 

V.  Morrison,     5    Ariz.    349, 

52  Pac.  985    415,     419 

V.  Morrison,  80  Ga.  393,  6 

S.  E.  171    376,     466 

V.  Morrison,  85  Ga.  229,  11 

S.    E.    614    467 

V.  Morse,   16   La.   575    11 

V.  Nichols,    127    App.    Div. 

219,    111    N.    Y.    S.    66 

242,  243,  793,     800 
V.  Osceola  Countv,   107    la. 

502,  78  N.  W.  198  .  . 

715,  815 
V.  Paine,  1  Pick  (Miss.)  G9  541 


lx> 


XXVI 11 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Clark  V.  Tarish,  1  Bibb.    (Kv.) 

547     244,     482 

V.  Randall,  9  Wis.   135,  70 

Am.  Dec.  252   357,     489 

V.  Richards,  3  E.  D.  Smith 
(N.Y.)    89    ..245,   246, 

193,     195 
V.  Robertson,  43  S.  W.  245, 
19    Ky.    L.    Rep.    1256 

273,     28G 
V.  Stevens,  55  la.  361,  7  N. 

W.   591    561 

V.  Sullivan,     55     Hun     604 

mem.,  8  N.  Y.  S.  565 .  .      460 
V.  Sullivan,    3    N.    D.    280. 
55    N.    W.    733     ..980, 
99G,    999,    1000,     1030, 

1033,   1057 
V.  Thomas,  4  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

419   392 

V.  Tracy,  95  la.  410,  64  N. 

W.   290    1091 

V.  Willett,  35  Cal.  534..  15 

230,  425,  1251 
Clarke  v.  Gray,  1  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)     128    374 

V.  Burke,   65    Wis.    359.    27 
N.  W.  22,  56  Am.  Rep. 

631    907 

V.  Faver,    (Tex.)    40  S.  W. 

1009    769,     962 

V.  Schell,    84    Hun    28,    31 

N.  Y.  S.  1053 290 

Clarke  Countv  v.  Clarke  County, 

1   Wash.  Ter.  250   308 

Clark's   Appeal,  93  Pa.  St.  369 

847,  1018 
Clarkson  v.  Young,  11  N.  Y.  S. 

562    959 

Clausen,    Re,    164    Fed.    300,    21 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  34 817 

Clay   V.    Ballard,   9    Rob.    (La.) 

308,    41    Am.   Dec.    328     728 
V.  Brown,     148     Mo.     App. 
541,    128    S.    W.    803.. 

926,     960 
V.  Moiilton,   70  Me.  315    ..      860 
V.  Williams,         2         Munf. 
(Va.)    105,  5   Am.  Dec. 

453    184 

Clay  County  v.  McCregor,  171 
Ind.  (534,  'l7  Ann.  Cas.  333.  87 
N.  K.  1    .  .    145,   14(1.  714.  715, 

1101,  1  1  IS,    1125 
Claypool   v.  Cisli,    108    Ind.   421, 

9"N.  E.  382    51)8 


are  to  pages.] 

Clayton   v.   State,   4   Tex.   App. 

515    342 

Cleavinger  v.  Reimar,  3  W.  &  S. 

(Pa.)    480    293,   299,     303 

Clegg   v.   Baumberger,    110    Ind. 
530,  9   N.  E.  700    .  .244,  240, 

371,  522,  575.     600 
Cleine  v.  Englebrecht,   41   N.  J. 

Eq.  498,  5  Atl.  718    2^>Q 

Cleland  v.  Clark,  111  Mich.  330, 

09   N.  W.  652    470 

Clement  v.  Major,  8  Colo.  App. 

86,  44  Pac.  776 634 

Clements   v.    Greenwell,    40   Mo. 

App.    589     461 

V.  Watson,   7   Cal.  App.  74 

93  Pac.  385  .  .  705,  700,     707 
Clendinen  v.  Black.  2  Bailey  L. 
(S.  C.)   488,  23  Am.  Dee.  149 

702,  799,     801 
Cleve  v.  Powel,  1  M.  &  Rob.  228     183 
Cleveland  v.  Cromwell,  110  App. 
Div.  82,  96  App.  Div.  82, 
96  N.  Y^  S.  475    . .551,     556 
V.  Cromwell,  128  App.  Div. 
237,   112  N.  Y.  S.   643 

584,     586 
V.  Hopkins,  55  Wis.  387.  13 

N.  W.  225    518 

Cleveland,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Porter. 

38    Ind.    App.    226,    74 

N.  E.  260,  76  N.  E.  179     856 

V.  Porter,  210  U.  S.  177,  28 

S.    Ct.    647,    52    U.    S. 

(L.  ed.)    1012    856 

V.  Shrum,  24  Ind.  App.  96 

55    N.    E.    515 877, 

879,  889,     903 
Cliant  v.  Brown,  9  Hare  (Eng.) 

790   185 

Click     V.     Gillespie,     4     Hayw. 

(Tenn.)    5    502 

Clillord  V.  Braun,  71  App.  Div. 

432,  75  N.  Y.  856    72:!,     749 

Clifton  V.  Clark,  S3  Miss.  441), 
1  Ann.  Cas.  396,  30  So. 
251,  102  Am.  St.  Rep. 
458,  00  L.R.A.  821.. 
248.  325,  320,  801,  832,  833 
V.  Clark,  84  .Miss.  795.  .37 

So.  740  704,  781,  913 

Cline  V.   Cluirles,    (Ky.)     124   S. 

W.    .•!47    .  .  .'. 271).     285 

V.   Wrightson,      7      Ky.      L. 

Rep.  230    .' 508 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


Ixxix 


[  Rcfi'ienci'S 

Cline  Piano  Co.  v.  Sherwood,  57 
Wasli.    23!),    lOG    Pac.    742.. 

101.-).     1075 
Clink,  Ro.   117  Midi.  (ilO,  7(i  X. 

W.  1,  5  Detroit  Leg.  N.  :?27  .  .    KJOS 
Clinton   v.   lleagney,    175   Mass. 

134,  5.5   N.  E.   894 452 

V.  New  Yorlc  Cent.,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  147  App.  Div.  4G8, 

131  N.  Y.  S.  881    450 

V.  State,  .58  Fla.  23,  50  So. 

580    HOG 

Clippenger  v.  Ilepbaugh,  5  W.  & 

S.    (Pa.)    315    754 

Clopton    V.    Gliolson,    53    Miss. 

46G    1018 

Close  V.  Gillespev,  3  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)     526     15 

V.  Shute,   4   Dem.    (N.   Y.) 

54G   lOGO 

Cloud  V.   Rivard,   G   Wasli.   555, 

34    Pac.    13G    777 

V.  Talcaferro    County,     138 
Ga.  214,  74  S.  E.  1074 

nOO,     902 
Clough  V.  Hart.  8  Kan.  487    ..    1113 
Clussman    v.    Merkel,    3    Bosw. 
(N.  Y.)    402    ..498,  5G7,  936, 

940,  945,  94G,     948 
Clute   V.   Robison,   38   Hun    (N. 

Y.)    283    902 

Clyde   V.   Peavy,    74    la.    47,    3G 

N.   W.   883    ^ 908 

Coaks  V.  Boswell,  11  App.  Cas. 

(Eng.)    232 30G 

Coates  V.  Semper,  82  Minn.  460, 

85  N.  W.  217    210 

Cobb,  Re,  84  Cal.  550,  24  Pac. 

293    1291 

V.  Becke.  6  Q.  B.  930,  51  E. 

C.  L.  930    57G 

V.  Judge.    43    Mich.    289,    5 
X.  W.  309   ..23,  28,  41, 

58,  414,  1174 
V.  Robinson,     1     How.     Pr. 

(X.   Y.)    235    540 

V.  Scoggin,     85     Ark.     106, 

107    S.   W.    188    1124 

V.  Simon.    19   Wis.   597,   97 
X.    W.    276,    100    Am. 

St.   Rep.   909    182 

V.  U.   S..    172    Fed.   641,   90 
C.    C.    A.    477     ..1190, 
1195.  1202,  1203,  1290,   1303 
Cobbctt    V.    Hudson.     15    Q.    B. 

988,  G9   E.  C.  L.  988.  .        54 


arc  to  pages.] 

Cobbett  V.  Hudson,  1   El.  &  Bl. 

11,  72  E.  C.  L.  11 320 

Cobbtv    V.    Buclianan,    48    Xeb. 
391,    67    N.    W.    176.. 

718,     719 
V.  norland,  50  Xeb.  373,  69 

X.    W.    957    995,     997 

Cobden  v.  Kendrick,  4  T.  R.  432 

175,     193 
Cobeldick,  Exp.  12  Q.  B.  D.  149, 
49  L.  T.  X.  S.  741,  32  W.  R. 

239    613 

Coburn  v.   Ansart,   3  Mass.  319     529 
Cocliran   v.   Bones,   1    Cal.   App. 

729,   82   Pac.   970    650 

V.  Lee,    87    S.    W.    769,    27 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1038  ...  781 
V.  Newton,  5  Den.   (N.  Y.) 

482    893 

V.  Tliomas,     131    Mo.    278, 

33  S.  W.  6    417 

Cochrane  v.  Little,  71  Md.  328, 
18   Atl.   698.  .548.   556, 

584.     586 

V.  Tuttle,  75  111.  361    626 

Cock  V.  Palmer,  1  Robt.  (N.  Y.) 

658,    19   Abb.   Pr.   372    1074 

Cockle    V.    Whiting,    1    Russ.    & 

M.    ( Eng. )    43    537 

Cochran     v.     Leister,     2     Root 

(Conn.)    348    431 

Cockrill  V.  Sanders,   (Ark.)   8  S. 

W.   831    913 

Cocks    V.    Harman,    6    East   404     613 
V.  Purday,  2   C.  &  K.  269, 

61  E.  C.  L.  269   338 

Codrington   v.   Lloyd,    8    Ad.   & 
El.    449,    35    E.    C.   L.    433,   2 
Jur.  593,  3  N.  &  P.  442   .  .525     .526 
Coe  V.  East,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  65  Fed. 

-[{]     1029,  1036 

Coffev.    Re.    123    Cal.    522.    56 
Pac.  448    ..1266,    1267, 

1269.   1270 
V.  Gamble,   117   la.   545,   91 

N.   W.   813    630 

V.  Quint,    92    Cal.    475,    28 

Pac.  494,  799   282 

Coffin  V.  Burstein,  68  App.  Div. 

22,  74  X.  Y'.  S.  274..  1247 
V.  Collin,  7  Me.  298..  599,  605 
V.  Dunham.  8  Cush  (Mass.) 

404,  54  Am.  Dec.  769.  .  906 
V.  Edgington.  2  Idaho  627, 

23   Pac.  80    246 


Ixxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Cofrode  r.  Wayne  Cir.  Judge, 
79  Mich.  332,  44  N.  W.  (323, 

7  L.R.A.  511    116 

Coggeshall  v.  Conner,  31  Okla. 
113,  Ann.  Cas.  1013D  577, 
120  Pac.  559,  39  L.R.A.  (N.S.) 

81    1124,  1128 

Coggswell  V.  Bohn,  43  Fed.  411  632 
Cohen,  Re,  120  App.  Div.  378, 
105  N.  Y.  S.  84  ..1212, 

1218,  1228,  1236,  1315 
V.  Gertner,  116  N.  Y.  S. 

712  884,  888 

V.  Smith,  33  111.  App.  344 

254,  258,  259 
V.  W.  S.,  38  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)  123  1113 

V.  Wright.  22  Cal.  293 

16,  22,  23,  33,  81,  83,  1068 
Cohn,  Re,  141  App.  Div.  511, 

126  N.  Y.  8.  218.  .1227,  1319 
Re,  150  App.  Div.  470,  134 

N.  Y.  S.  1103  ..  1209,  1320 
V.  Baldwin,  74  Hun  346,  26 

N.  Y.  S.  457  460 

V.  Heusner,  9  Misc.  482,  30 
X.    Y.    S.    244     ..558, 

559,     946 
V.  Polstein,    41     Misc.    431, 
84     X.     Y.     S.     1072.. 
1010,  1028,   1043,  1069, 

1079,  1082 
Cointement    v.   Cropper,    41    La. 

Ann.   303,    6    So.    127    640 

Coit  V.   Sheldon.   1   Tvler    (Vt.) 

300    ". 445,     518 

Coker  v.  Oliver,  4  (ia.  App.  728, 
62  S.  E.  483   .  .    189.  701,  764, 

765,  792,  806,  810.     921 
Colbert   v.   State.   125   Wis.  423, 

104  N.   W.   61    1112 

Colburn  v.  CoUedire,  |  1897]  1 
Q.    B.    (Eiig.)     702,    66    L.    J. 

Q.  B.  462    958 

Cole,  E.\  p..  1  MeCrary  405,  6 
Fed.  ('as.  No."  2,973.  . 
IKiS,    1  193,    1195.   1  198, 

1205,    1254,    12(i5,   1290 
Re.  8   U.-p.    105.  (i   Fed.  Cas. 

.\(..  2.!I75 187 

Re,  7   W.  \.  C.  114,  6  Fe<l. 

Cas.  No.  2,975   ...   194.     212 
V.  Andrews.     71     Minn.    il3, 

76  \.  W.  !lt;2    182 

v.   flif'()v,.||.|;i.    t    Colo.    IH.  .      -ZO'Z 
V.   Curtis,    HI    .Minn.    1S2    .  .      6;!8 


are  to  pages.] 

Cole  V.  Grant,  2  Caines   (N.  Y.) 

105    1056 

V.  McClellan,     4     Hill      (N. 

Y.)    59    114,  115.     116 

McKune,   19   Cal.   422    112^ 

V.  Richmond    Min.    Co..    18 

Xev.  120.  1  Pac.  663.  .  .      912 
V.  Robv,  61  Hun  624  mem., 

16  N.  Y.  S.  20.. ..910,     945 
V.  School  Dist.  No.    29,    32 

Okla.  692,  123  Pac.  426     337 
V.  Wilson,       18      B.      Mon. 

(Ky.)  212   136 

Colegrave    v.    Manley,   T.  &   R. 

(Eng.)  400 ' 974 

Coleman,  Ex  p.,  54  Ark.  235,  15 

S.  W.  470 35.  36,   58 

Re,  111  N.  Y.  220,  19  N.  E. 

71 211,  212 

V.  Austin,  99  Ga.  629,  27  S. 

E.  763  999 

V.  Frauenthal,  46  Ark.  302 

131,  132 
V.  Grubb,  23  Pa.  St.  393, 

489,     491 
V.  Heurich.    2    Mackey     (D. 

C.)     189 ." 650 

V.  Jones.  131  La.  803,  6  So. 

243    346 

V.  Ryan,   58  Ga.   132 1075 

V.  Tim,  18  X.  Y.  C.  240..  .   597 
V.  ^^■oolev,   10   B.   Mon. 

(Ky!)  320  719 

Coler  V.  People,  61  App.  Div. 
538,  10  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  105, 
15  X.  Y.  Crim.  460,  70  X.  Y. 

S.  659  816 

Coles   V.    Anderson.     8     Humph. 

(Tenn.)    489    355,     510 

V.  Coles,   13  X.  J.    Eq.    365 

847.     848 
Colgan    V.   Jones,   44    X.   J.    Eq. 

274,  18  Atl.  55 746,     748 

Colgate  V.  Colgate,  23  X.  J.  Eq. 

372    718 

Colgrave    v.    INIanley,     T.     &     R. 

(Eng.)    400   ....'. 1087 

Colledge   V.    Horn.    3    Hinir.    119, 

11  E.  C.  L.  59 347,  349,     488 

C^ollett    V.     Foster,    2    11.   &    N. 

(Eng.)   356   531 

Collev  V.  Wolcott.  187   Frd.  :>'.)?,. 

109  C.  C.  A.  425.  .  .  .Sll,  S12,     843 

Collier  V.   Falk.  (i(;   .Ala.  22!t 443 

V.    I'nlliani,    1  .'i    l.ca    (Tciin.) 

114      5S!).      592 

V.   Stale.    (  Miss.)    (-,]  So.  (i^!)    1  1  Hi 


TABT,E    OF    CASKS. 


Ixxxi 


[References 

Collins,  Ex  p..  2  Va.  Cas.  222    .      Ill 
Re.  147  C'al.  8.  81  Pac.  220 
1171,   1195,  119(J,  1202, 

1204,   121)1.  1293 
Re,   18  C.  B.  272,  80  E.  C. 

L.  272    1174 

V.  Campbell,  97  Me.  23,  53 
Atl.    837,    94    Am.    St. 

Rep.  458    1055 

V.  Fidelity    Trust    Co..     33 
Wasli.     130.      73      Pac. 

1121    375,  370,  378,     408 

V.  Havte.    50    111.    338,    99 

Am.  Dec.  521    646 

V.  Hoffman,   62    \\'ash.   278, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913A  1,  113 

Pac.    025 195,  204, 

214,  210,     217 
V.  Huffman,   48   ^Yash.    184, 

93   Pac.   220 857 

V.  Jennings,  42  la.  447.  .  .  .      780 
V.  Johnson,      10      Ga.      458 

189,  193,     330 
V.  Nickerson,    1    Spr.    120, 

0  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,016..    1041 
V.  Robinson,    72    Hun    495, 

25  X.  Y.  S.  268 208 

V.  State,  8  Ind.  344 1143 

V.  Stewart.    10   Neb.   52,   20 

N.  W.  11    131 

Collins's  Line  of  Steamships,  9 

Op.  Atty.-Gen.  32 1141 

Collyer,    Nieman,    71    Flun    012 

mem..  24  N.  Y.  S.  510   788 

Colorado     Coal,     etc.,     Co.,     v. 
Carpita,    0    Colo.    App. 
248,  40  Pac.  248..  .424,     435 
V.  John,   5    Colo.   App.   213. 

38   Pac.  399    963 

Colorado   State   Bank  v.   David- 
son, 7  Colo.  App.  91,  42  Pac. 

687    999,   1048,  1052 

Colt  V.  Gregory,  3  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

22    .  .' 10,  114,     115 

V.  McConnell,  116  Ind.  249, 

19  N.  E.  106 183 

Columbia    Bldg.,    etc.,  Assoc,  v. 
Rice,  68  S.  C.  230.  1  Ann.  Cas. 

239,  47  S.  E.  03 774 

Columbia    Water    Power    Co.    v. 

Columbia,  4  S.  C.  388 030 

Colville    V.     Small,    22    Ont.    L. 

Rep.  426.  19  Ann.  Cas.  515..      070 
Combs  V.  Combs,  82  S.  \Y.  298, 

26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  017 78^?.     843 

Comfort      V.      Stoekbridge,      38 

Mich.    342 205 


are  to  pages.] 

Commandeur    v.    Carrollton.   15 

La.  Ann.  7 790 

Commercial  Nat.  Bank  v.  John- 
son.   10   Wash.    530,    48    Pac. 

207    774 

Commercial     Telegram     Co.     v. 

Smith,  57  Hun    170.     19    Civ. 

Proc.    32,     10    N.    Y.    S.    4,33 

1002,  1005,   lots,   1003, 

1008,  1072 
Commercial  Cnion  x\ssur.  (  o.  v. 
Chattahoochee     Lumber     Co., 

130  Ga.  191,  60  S.  E.  554, 483 

Commerell       v.       Poynton,        1 

Swanst.    (Eng.)    1 .  ." 1000 

Commissioners'    Ct.    v.    Turner, 

45  Ala.  199 715,     813 

Commissioners     of     Public     Ac- 
counts v.  Rose,  1   Desaus  401 

302.  500,  1102 
Commissioners     of     Roads     for 
505th  Dist.  v.  Griffin  &  \Y.  P. 
Plank-Road  Co.,  9  Ga.  491  ..  .      510 
Commonwealth    v.     Bacon.     135 

Mass.  521    218 

v.  Barton,     20     Pa.     Sui)er. 

Ct.    447 105,     229 

V.  Best,    180   Mass.   492,   02 

N.  E.  748 178 

V.  Branthoover.  24  Pa.  (  o. 

Ct.  353  . 15.  108 

v.  Bubnis.  197  Pa.  St.  542, 

47  Atl.  748 1091, 

1114.  1120 
v.  Clark.  157  Pa.  St.  257, 

27  Atl.  723 028 

y.  Collom,  1  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

542    148,  151,     152 

V.  Commissioners,    1    Chest. 

Co.   Rep.   349 369 

v.  Connecticut  River  R.  Co., 
15    Gray     (Mass.)     447 

1121,   1153 
v.  Culver,   1  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep. 
303,    2    Pa.    L.    J.    301 

119,     122 
v.  Dawson,   3   Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

003    1100 

v.  Eisenhower,  181  Pa.  St. 
470,  37  Atl.  521.  59 

Am.  St.  Rep.  070 1123 

v.  Field,  84  Va.  20,  3  S.  C. 

882  1149 

V.  Gibbs,  4  Gray  (Mass.) 

140  308,  315.  319, 

1104,  1110.  1121.  1123 


Ixxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Commonwealth   v.  Gndslialk.    13 

Phila.  575,  34  Leg.  Int. 

315    110 

V.  Grant,    201     Mass.    458, 

87  X.  E.  895  107 

V.  Grier,  22  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 

N.  S.    (Pa.)    243 1098 

V.  Havrilla.    38    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.  292 1092,  1097 

V.  Herr,    1    Pearson     (Pa.) 

328    838-839 

V.  Hippie,    G9    Pa.     St.     9 

1115,  1118 
V.  Judges,  1  S.  &  R.   (Pa.) 

187 63 

V.  Judges,    5    Watts    &    S. 

(Pa.)     272 1323.  1325 

V.  King,    8    Gray     (Mass.) 

501 i092,    1101,  1105 

V.  Knapp,   9   Pick.    (Mass.) 

496,   20   Am.   Dec.   491 

146,  1110 
V.  Knapp,  10  Pick.   (Mass.) 

477,   20   Am.   Dee.   534 

1101,  1110,  1123,  1148 
V.  Louisville    Property    Co., 

128  Ky.  790,  109*  S.  W. 

1183,    33    Ky.    L.    Rep. 

225    452 

V.  Louisville   Propertv    Co., 

141  Kv.  731,  ]33"S.  W. 

759    1147 

V.  McHale,  97   Pa.  St.   397, 

39  Am.  Rep.  808.  .1093, 

1090,  1099 
V.  McKay,    (Ky.)    20  S.  W. 

276 577,  620,  1225,  1314 

V.  Meclianics'   Mut.    F.   Ins. 

Co.,      122      Mass.      421 

845,  1023 
V.  Moore,    5    J.    J.    Marsli. 

(Ky.)  655   32S 

V.  ^Moyer,     15     Phila.     397, 

38   Leg.   Int.  458    198 

V.  Newton,     1     (ii'dnt     (as. 

(I'a.)    45:!    120(; 

V.  Nicciv,    l;;it    Pa.    St.    2()1, 

18    At!.    737 1121) 

V.  Norman.   (Ky.)   50  S.  \\  . 


1  1-4S 


V.  Order   of    Solon.    Ilt2    I'a. 

St.    487,    -i::   AM.    losi 

S45   893 
V.  Ovejsccrs      of      I'oor,      4 

Kulp.    ( I'a.)    .S7 465 


are  to  pages.] 

Commonwealth    v.    Peterson,    1 

Pa.   L.   J.   Rep.   482,   3 

Pa.  L.  J.  154   436 

v.  Richie.    114   Ky.   366.   70 

S.   W.   1054,  24   Kv.   L. 

Rep.   1218. .1176.   1178,  1282 
V.  Roe,  129  Ky.  650,  112  S. 

W.      G83,      19      L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    413 1168, 

1109,  1170,  1172,  1218, 

1222.  1227,  1209,  1284,  1298 
V.  Ronald,  4  Call  (Va.)  97 

10,  115 
V.  Rowe,  112  Kv.  482,  66  S. 

W.  29,  23  ky.  L.  Rep. 

1718  1127,  1128 

V.  Schooley,  5  Kulp.  (Pa.) 

53  468 

V.  Scott,   123  Mass.  222,  25 

Am.   Rep.  81 1102, 

1110,  1112 
V.  Serfass,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

139  422,  436 

V.  Southern  Pac.  Co.,  127 

Ky.  358,  105  S.  W.  406, 

32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  259, 

285  1155 

V.  State   Treasurer,   29   Pa. 

(  o.    Ct.    545,      13     Pa. 

Dist.    Ct.   232    .  .  .1152,  1155 
V.  Terry,   11  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

547 237,  673,  735, 

792,  793,  903,     994 
V.  Thomas,    9    Ky.    L.    Rep. 

289     (abstract) 1128 

V.  Tuck,   20   Pick.    (Mass.) 

356 1123,   1163,   1164 

V.  Webster,  5  Cush. 

(Mass.)     295,    52    Am. 

Dec.    711 1123 

V.  Weston.      Ill       Pa.      St. 

251.    2    Atl.    191 G27 

V.  Williams.  2  Cush. 

(Mass.)    582 1101, 

1110,   1123 
Coininonwcaltli    Hank   v.   PattoTi, 
A     J.    .).     .Marsh.     (Ky.)      190 

575.     007 
Compiler    V.    Missouri,    etc.,    'I'el. 
Co.,   137    -Mo.  App.  89.    119  S. 

W.    493    1004 

Conijitoii      V.      Barnes,     4      Gill 

(  M(l.)    55,  45  Am.  Dec. 

115    931 

V.  State,   38   Ark.   001 1021 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


Ixxxiii 


[References 

Comstock  V.  Flower,  109  Mo. 
App.  275,  84  S.  \V.  207 

070,  7(iS,     880 

V.  Paie,  18  La.  478 215,     52!) 

Conaiit  V.   Burnliam,    KJS   Mass. 

503,  43  Am.  Rep.  532 905,     900 

Conclia  V.  Murrietta,  40  C'h.  D. 
(Eng.)     543,    GO    L.  T.  N.  S. 

798    339 

Condit   V.    Blackwell,    22    N.    J. 

Eq.    481    274,     283 

Cone    V.     Brown,     15     Rich     L. 

(S.  C.)   202   304,     365 

V.  Donaldson,     47     Pa.     St. 

303    544 

V.  Brooks,   00   Neb.   098,   84 

K.  W.  85 971,  973, 

994,     995,     997,     1000, 

1010.   1035,  1080,  1087 
Coney    Island    Lumber    Co.,    Re, 

199   Fed.    197    821 

Confiscation  Cases,  7  Wall.  454, 

19  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   1911.  .  .1135,  1137 
Congregation    of    the    Resurrec- 
tion V.  Laibe,    152    111.    App. 

417    426 

Conklin  v.  Conklin,  113  App. 
Div.    743,    99  K.  Y.  8. 

310     250,     252 

V.  Dougherty,  44  Ind.  App. 

570,  89  N.  E.  893 180 

Conkling  v.  Austin,  111  Mo. 
App.  292,  80  S.  \V.  911 
979,    1010,    1016,    1023, 

1024,   1042,  1043 
V.  Whitmore,   132   III.  App. 

574    632 

Conley  v.   Key,   98   Ga.    115,   25 

S.  E.  914 118,     533 

V.  Whitthorne,    (Tcnn.)     58 

S.  W.  380 385,  408,  '  499 

Conn.   V.    Rice    (C.    C.    A.)    204 

Fed.    181 026,    075,     780 

Connecticut  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Schaefer,    94    U.    S.    457,    24 

U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    251 159,     162 

Connecticut  River  Mut.   F.   Ins. 

Co.  V.  Way,  62  N.  11.  622 ....      685 
Connell,    Re,    120    Fed.    846,    9 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    474 825 

V.  Brumback,    10   Ohio   Cir. 
Dec.   149,   18   Ohio   Cir. 
Ct.  502   .  .  .    1040,  1043,   1047 
V.  Galligher,    36    Neb.    749, 

55  N.  W.  229 417 


are  to  pages.] 

Conner  v.  Watson,  29  Civ.  Pro. 

153,  27  Misc.  444,  59  N.  Y.  S. 

213     362,     364 

Conncrv  v.  Manning,  163  Mass. 

44,  .39  N.  E.  553 038,     042 

Connett  v.  Chicago,  114  111.  233, 

29   X.  E.  280 490,     510 

Connolly  v.  Straw,  53  Wis.  649, 

11  N.'  W.  17 .  .  .  .328,  331,  .332,  333 
Connor   v.  Ashley,   41   S.   C.   67, 

19  S.  E.  201    954 

V.  Ashley,  57  S.  C.  305,  35 

S.   E.   546    718 

V.   Boyd,  73   Ala.   385    1040 

Conover  v.  Carpenter,  57  Wasli. 

146,    106   Pac.   620    883.     946 

Conrad  v.  .Johnson,  20  Ind.  421  150 
Conrey  v.  Brenham,  1  La.  Ann. 

397  416,  466 

Consaul  v.  Cunmiings,  222  U.  S. 

262.  32  S.  Ct.  83.  56  U.  8.  (L. 

ed.)     192,    alHrming    33    App. 

Cas.  (D.  C.)  132  .  .  834,  83.'x  837 
Consolidated   Assoc,   v.  Conieau, 

3  La.  Ann.  552   678 

Consolidated    Real    Estate,    etc., 

Co.  V.  Cashow,  41  Md.  59  .  .  335 
Continental    Adjustment    Co.    v. 

Hoffman,  123"  111.  App.  09    .  . 

371,   709,     899 
Continental     Nat.     Bldg.,     etc., 

Assoc.   V.   Scott,   41   Fla.   421, 

20  So.  726    629 

Converse  v.  McArthur,  17  Barb. 

(N.    Y.)    410    495 

Convey  v.  Murphy.  154  la.  421. 

134    N.   W.    1065    848 

Conwav    v.   Rock,    139    la.    162, 

117  N.  W.  273    180 

Conway  County  v.  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Ark.  50    .  . 

251,    364,    500,     502 
Conyers  v.  Gray,  67  Ga.  329   .  .      577 

Cook  V.  Allen,  67  N.  Y.  578 488 

V.  Bloodgood,  7  Ala.   683 .  . 

520,     582 
V.   Broomhead,    16    Ves.   Jr. 

(Eng.)   133   537 

V.  Caraway.  29  Kan.  41  .  .  130 
V.  Foster,  "(Pa.)  6  Atl.  150  567 
V.    Ciilbert,    8    Serg.    &    R. 

(Pa.)     567     453 

V.  Greenberg,    (Tex.)    34   S. 

W.   689    375,     385 

V.  Hopper,  23  Mich.  511  .  .  527 
V.  Parham,  63  Ala.  456...      246 


Ixxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ai 

Cook  V.  Proskev,  138   Fed.  273, 

70  C.  C.  A.  563   650 

V.  Hitter,  4  E.  D.  Smith  (X. 

Y.)    253    710.     889 

V.   Rives,    13    Smed.    &    -M. 
(Miss.)     329,     53     Am. 
Dec.  88.  .588.  604,  605,     606 
V,    Rosslyn,    3    Giff.    (Eng.) 
175,' 7  Jur.  N.  S.  1070, 
5  L.  T.  N.  S.  133   ....      538 
Cooke  V.  Newell,  40   Conn.  596     906 
V.  Pennington,   7  S.  C.  385     478 
V.  Plaisted.  176  Mass.   374, 

57  N.  E.  687   

884,    960,     962 
V.   Plaisted,    181    Mass.    82, 

62  N.  E.  1054 881 

V.  Poole,  25  S.  C.  593    679 

V.  Thresher,  51  Conn.  105.  . 

980,  1030 
Cooksey,  Re,   79  Kan.   550,  100 

Pac.    62    1209,  1301 

Cooley    V.    Cecile,    8    La.    Ann. 

51    ....    231,  889,  897,     904 
V.  Doherty,  5  La.  Ann.  163 

242,     800 
V.  Miller,  156  Cal.  510,  105 

Pac.    981    .  .    274,   283,     749 
Cooly  V.  Patterson,  52  Me.  472 

989,   1041,    1048,  1050 
Coombs  V.  Knox,  28  Mont.  202, 
72    Pac.    641    ..     1080,    1081, 

1083,  1086 
Coon  V.  Welborn,  83  Ind.  230.  .      439 

V.   Swan,   30   Vt.   6    189 

Coonan  v.  Loewenthal,  129  Cal. 

197,  61  Pac.  940  .  .  450,  485,  887 
Coonev  v.  Chase,  81  Mich.  203, 

45  N.  W.  833  650 

Cooper,  Re,  22  N.  Y.  67,  20  How. 
Pr.  1,  reversinjj  31 
Parb.  3.^)3,  10  Abb.  Pr. 
348,  19  IIow.  Pr.  97    .  . 

17,  32,  34.  71.  85,  1168 

Re,   12   Hawaii    124    1168 

V.   Arciier,   12    Price    (Eng.) 

149     130 

V.    I'.i-ll.    (TciiM.)    153   S.   W. 

814    745,     766 

V.    Carr,    8    .lohns.     (N.    Y.) 

:!r,o    472 

V.  CooiMT.  27  .Misc.  595.  .')9 
X.  V.  S.  86,  aMiniicd 
51  Ap[..  Div.  595,  64 
N.  Y.  S.   901    849 


e  to  pages.] 

Cooper  V.  Dclcvan.  CI    III.  00   ..      902 
V.  Ficmming.  114  Tcnii.  40, 
84  S.  \V.  801,  OS  L.R.A. 

849    633,     637 

V.  Hamilton,  52  III.  119    .  . 

232.   779,     901 
V.  Harding,  7  Q.  B.  928.  53 

E.  C.  L.  928,  0  Jur.  777     524 
V.  Harvev,  77  Kan.  854.  94 

Pac*  213    .  .    701.    788,     924 
V.    Indian    Territory    Bank, 
4    Okla.    632,  "46    Pac. 

475      773 

V.  Lee,  75  Tex.   114,   12  S. 

W.  483    ....    274.  282,     284 
V.    Stinson,    5    Minn.    201 .  . 

880      881 
V.    Utterbach.    37    :\Id.    282     642 
Cooper  Grocery  Co.  y.  Citizens' 
Bank    &    Trust    Co.,    62    Fla. 

142,    56    So.    435    777 

Co-operative  Law  Co.,  Re,  198 
X.  Y.  479,  19  Ann.  Cas.  882, 
92  N.  E.  15,  139  Am.  St.  Rep. 
839,  32  L.R.A. (N.S.)    55    .... 

22,  23,  25,  45,  105,  1150.  1157 
Cooperson   v.    Pollon,    30    Misc. 

619,  62  X.  Y.   S.   772    206 

Coopwood  v.  Baldwin,  25   Miss. 

129   516.  519,  603,     620 

v.  Wallace,  12  Ala.  790    .  . 

766,    796,    869,    887,     952 
Copeland-Chatterson  Co.  v.  Busi- 
ness    Systems,     10     Ont.     W. 

Rep.  92   851 

Copley     v.     Harrison,     3     Rob. 

(La.)    83    .  .    701,   784,     789 
V.  Lambeth,  1  La.  Ann.  316     678 
V.   Moody,   2   La.   Ann.   497     678 
Copp  V.  Colorado  Coal,  etc.,  Co., 
33  Misc.  773,  67  N.  Y.  S.  970, 
aflirming  32  Misc.  241,  65  N. 

Y.    S.    789     870 

Copps  y.  Adams  County,  27  Neb. 

360,   43   N.  W.   114    932 

Cocpiillard    v.    Bearss,    21     Ind. 

479.  83  Am.  Dec.  362    673 

Corbclt  v.  De  Comeau,  45  Super. 

Ct.  (N.  Y.)   637   423 

y.      Gibson,    18    Hun    49    .  . 

218,     423 
y.    (;iibort,    24    Ga.    454     .  . 

179.     205 
Corbin     v.     Mulligan,     1     l>ush 

(Ky.)   297   360,  731,     737 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ixxxv 


[References 

Corbitt  V.  Timmermnn.  95  ]\Iicli. 
581,  55  X.  W.  437,  35 
Am.    St.    Rep.    586     .  . 

41G,   427.     444 
V.    Watson.    88    App.    Div. 
467,    85    X.   Y.    125    .  , 

1065.  106(i 
Cord   V.   Tavlor,   5   Kv.   T..    Rep. 

852    '. "  598,    605,     608 

Cordes   v.   Bailev,   39    Ind.   App. 

83,  78  X.  E.  (578.  1000 

723,  764.  768.  806,     913 
Corev   y.  Russell,   4   Wend.    (X. 

Y.')    204    115,     116 

Corker    v.    Elmore    County,    11 

Idaho   787,  84   Pac.  509*'  ....    1157 
Corliss.  Ex  p.,  16  X\  D.  470,  114 

X.  W.   962    1116 

Cormier  v.  Richard,  7  Mart.  X. 

S.    (La.)    177    208 

Cornelissen    v.    Ort,    132    Mich. 

294.  93  X\  W.  617  .  .  569,  587,     589 
Cornelius  v.  Harrison.  2  F.  &  F. 

lEmr.)    758     522 

V.   Wash.    Breese    (111.)    98, 

12   Am.   Dec.   145    371 

Cornell  v.  Allen,  Col.  &  C.  Cas. 

(X.  Y.)    75   538 

V.  Donovan.  14  Dalv  292,  12 

X.   Y.   St.   Rep'.   117    .  .    1086 
Corn    Exeh.    Bank    v.    Blve.    44 
Hun    628    mem.,    9    X.    Y.    St. 

Rep.    67     472 

Corninj^  v.  Southland,  3  Hill  (X". 

Y.)    552    503,     506 

Corpus  Cliristi  College,  Ex  p.,  6 

Taunt.  105,  1  E.  C.  L.  325   .  .      013 
Corson   v.    Lewis,    77    X'eb.    446, 

109  X.  W.  735   .  .    236,     245 
V.    McDonald,    3    Cal.    App. 

412,   85   Pac.   861    776 

Cory  V.  Harte,  13  Daly  (X.  YJ 

147  1002.  1007.  1036 

V.  Wirth,  21  Kan.  10  .  .  559,  586 
Cosgrove  v.  Burton.  104  Mo. 
App.  698,  78  S.  W. 

667  723.  808,  942 

V.  Leonard,  134  Mo.  419,  33 
S.    W.    777,    35    S.    W. 

1137     937.     941 

Cosson    V.    Bradshaw,    (la.)    141 

X.  W.  1062    1150,  1163 

Cost  V.  Genette,  1  Port.    (Ala.) 

212      393 

Coster  V.  Greenpoint  Ferry  Co.. 
5  Civ.  Proc.  146,  af- 
firmed 98  X.  Y.  660   .  .    1074 


are  to  pages.] 

Coster  V.  Watson,  15  .Tohns.   (X. 

Y.)     535    126 

Costigan    y.    Stewait.    76    Kan. 
353,    91    Pac.    83,    11    L.R.A. 

(X.S.)   630   981.  982,  1017 

Cothren      v.     C'onnaughton,     24 

Wis.    134     13.    128,     13C 

Cotton    V.    Aslilev,    5    Ohio    Cir. 
Dec.  6,  il  Oliio  Cir.  Ct. 

47      609 

V.   Sharpstein,  14  Wis.  226, 

80   Am.  Dec.  774    

575,     600 
Cottrell    V.    Finlayson,    4    How. 
Pr.  (X.  Y.)  242  .  .  020, 

623,     624 
V.  Wheeler,    89    Iowa    754, 

57   X.   W.    434    395 

Cotzhausen  v.  Central  Trust  Co., 
79  Wis.  613,  49  X.  W.  158   .  . 

765.  796,     942 
Coughlin    V.    X^ew    York    Cent., 
etc..  R.  Co.,  71  X.  Y.  443,  27 
Am.  Rep.  75  .  .   670,  681.  729. 

807.    1040.  1078 
Countee   v.    Armstrong,    9    Ohio 
Dec.     (Reprint)     62,    10    Cine. 

L.    Bui.   339    385.     396 

Coup   V.   Lovvther,   1  Ld.   Raym. 

597    459 

Courser    v.    Jackson.    159    Mich. 
119,  123  X.  W.  604,  16  Detroit 

Leg.    X.    845    245 

Courtney  v.  Courtney,  4  Ind. 

App.  221,  30  X.  E.  914,  907 
v.  McGavock,  23  Wis.  619.. 

995,  1015.  1031.  1065 
Courtright  v.  Burns,  13  Fed. 

317  662,  684,  686 

Couse  V.  Horton.  23  App.  Div. 
198,  49  X.  Y.  S.  132  .  .  274. 

556.  581 
Cousins  v.  Partridge,  79  Cal. 

224,  21  Pac.  745  ..278,  285 
y.  State,  50  Ala.  113.  20 

Am.  Rep.  290  .  .  96,  97.   98 
Coutler  v.  Denny,  67  S.  W.  05. 

23  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1619  1147 

Covell  V.  Hart,  14  Hun    (X.  Y.) 

252    462,  464.     544 

Covenev  v.  Tannahill,  1  Hill  33, 
37  Am.  Dec.  287   .  .   198.  200, 

202.  207.  213,     220 
Coventry    Evans   Furniture    Co., 
Re.    171    Fed.    673,    22    Am. 
Bankr.   Rep.    623    822 


Ixxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Covev  V.  Campbell,  52  Iml.  157 

936,     940 

Covin  V.  Phy.  24  111.  37   510 

Covington  v.  Bass.  88  Tenn.  496, 
12  S.  W.  1033,  .  .  80.5,  986. 
998,    1000,    1041,    104(3.    1048, 

1049.  1050,  1082 
Cowan  v.  Barrett.  18  Mo.  257.  .  304 
Cowderv.  Re,  69  Cal.  32,  10  Pae. 

47.  58  Am.  Rep.  545 307, 

317,    318,    1212,  1213 
Cowdrey   v.   Hitchcock,   103    111. 

262    829 

Cowen   V.  Boone,  48   la.   350    .  .    1003 
Cowing,  Ex  p.,  26  Ore.  572,  38 

Pac.  1090    1273,  1298 

Cowles    V.    Thompson,    31    Nel). 

479,  48  N.  W.  145 771, 

772,     956 
Cowley  V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co., 

46    Fed.    325    561 

V.  O'C'onnell,   ]74   Mass. 
253,  53  N.  E.  1001,  54 

N.  E.  558  1212 

V.  Pulsifer,   137   Mass.  392, 

50  Am.  Rep.   318    

Cowling  V.  Nelson,  76  Ark.  146, 

88  S.  W.  913   848 

Cox  V.  Adclsdorf,  (Ky.)  51  S.  W. 

610 884,  396,  406,     407 

V.  Alexander,  30  Ore.  438, 

46  Pac.  794 777 

V.  Barnes,  45  Neb.  172.  63 

N.  W.  394  309,  320 

V.  Cline,  147  la.  353,  126  N. 

W.  330  342 

V.  Dolmas.  99  Cah  104,  33 

Pac.  836 273.  282, 

591,     601 
V.  Hill,  3  Ohio  412    .  .    328,     420 
V.    Eeceii,    1     C.    B.    N.    S. 
(Eng.)  617,  87  E.  C.  L. 
617,  3  .Tur.  N.  S.  442..      553 
V.  Livingston.  2  Watts.  &  S. 
(I'a.)   103.  37  Am.  Dec. 
486   ....   549,  570,  577.     595 
V.  Martin,  75  Miss.  238,  21 
So.    611.    65     Am.     St. 
Itep.  604,  36  L.H.A.  800     834 
V.  New   "S'ork   Cent.,  etc.   Iv. 

Co.,  63  N.  Y.  414   .  .384.     482 
V.  Prichard,  20   L.  J.  (,).   I?. 

(Kn':.)   353    977.  1029 

V.    Smith,    1    Nev.    161.    90 

Am.  Dec.  476   ....   772,     773 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Cox  V.  Sullivan,  7   Ca.   144.   .'")0 

Am.    Doc.   386    .  .    295, 

548,  549,  550,  552,  570, 

589.  594, 

V.  Williams.  5  Mart.  N.  S. 

(La.)     139     

Coxe  V.  Nicholls,  2  Yeates  (Pa.) 

546    

Cozzens  v.  Whitney,  3  R.  I.  79 
Craddock    v.    Goodwin.    54    Tex. 

578   

V.  O'Brien.  104  Cal.  217.  37 

Pac.    896    .  .    797.    800. 

Craft   V.   State.   3   Kan.   450    .  . 

Crafts  V.  Clark.  38  la.  237    ... 

Cragin  v.  De  Pape.  159  Fed.  691, 

86  C.  C.  A.  559   

V.   Travis,   1   How.   Pr.    (N. 

Y.)  157 977.  1030, 

Craig  V.  Ely,  5  Stew.  &  P.  354 

359 

Cram  v.  Sickel,  51  Neb.  828.  71 

N.  W.   724.   66  Am.   St.   Rep. 

478   363.  380.  391, 

Cramer  v.  Huff.  114  Ca.  981,  41 

S.  E.   57    

Crane  v.  Cruenewald,  120  N.  Y. 

274.   24   N.   E.   456.   17 

Am.  St.  Rep.  643.  .364. 

V.  Curnee,  75  N.  -J.  Eq.  104. 

71    Ath    338     

V.  N«lson,  37  111.  App.  597.  . 

85. 

V.  Rosello.  157  111.  App.  595 

931, 

Cranmer   v.    Brothers,   15   S.    D. 

234.  88  N.  W.  105...  . 

769,  960. 

V.  Building  &   Loan   Assoc, 

6  S.  b.  341,  61  N.  W. 

35  782. 

Crarv  v.  Turiier,  6  Johns.  (N. 


Y. 


Crave,  etc..  Co..  Re,  183  Fed.  769, 

100  C.  C.  A.  180  

Crawford  v.  Feruuson,  5  Oklii. 

Crim.  377.  115  Pac.  278 

131. 

V.  Lo\e.  10  Mo.   App.  583 

V.  McKissack,  1  Port.  (Ala.) 

433  ....  165.  166.  175, 

V.  Nnlan,  70  la.  97.  30  N. 

\V.    32  

V.  State.  155  Ind.  692.  57 

N.  F.  931  1148, 

V.  Tvn-j.  2  ^lisc.  469,  21  N. 
Y.'  S.  1041  


595 

331 

443 
1028 

859 

912 

1096 

336 

632 

1056 

393 

409 
778 

385 
614 
427 
941 

964 

946 
411 

825 

1207 
719 

193 

368 

1156 

941 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Ix 


[References 

Cravton  v.  Spulloek,  87  (Ja.  326. 

13  S.  E.  561   293,  296,     297 

Creamer  v.  Creamer,  36  Ca.  618     148 
Crear  v.  Fields,  148  Ky.  730,  147 

S.   W.    901    ■ 1094 

Cregier  v.  Cheesbrougli,  25  How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  200  ....   261.  781.     796 

Creighton.  Re.  91  Xeh.  654.  Aim. 

Ca.s.  1913D  128.  136  X. 

W.  1001  .  .  1150.  1154,  1158 

V.  IngersoU,  20  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  541  ..  254,  262, 

796,  1028.  1051 
Creighton's  Estate,  Re,  93  Neb. 

90,  139  N.  W.  827  841 

Creiisluiw,   Botts   v.   Chase,   224, 

3    Fed.    Cas.    No.    1,690    ....      571 
Crescent    Canal    Co.    v.    Mont- 
gomery,   124   Cal.    134, 

56    Pac.    797    482 

V.     ]Montg()mery.     126     Cal. 

197,^51   viic.   940    ....      936 
Cressman    v.    Whitall,    16    Neb. 

592,  21  N.  W.  458 770,     783 

Cresswell  v.  Bryon.  14  Ves.  Jr. 

(Eng.)   272   .'.  . 566 

Creste,  Re,  98   S.  W.   282    87 

Creton  v.  Foote  &  Thome  Glass 
Co.,  40  App.  Div.  215,  57  N. 

Y.  S.  1103    684 

Crim  V.  Handlev,  94  U.  S.  659. 

24  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    219    561 

Crisenza  v.  Auehnuitv,  121  App. 

Div.  611,  106  N.  Y.  8.  335..    1079 
Crisler  v.  (iarland.  11   Smed.  & 

M.  136,  49  Am.  Dec.  49 196 

Criswell  v.  Everett  School  Dis- 
trict  No.    24,    34   Wash.    420, 

75  Pac.  984 852 

Critchfield  v.  Porter,  3  Ohio  518 

353,  440,     443 
Crittenden  v.  Strother,  2  Cranch 
(C.  C.)    464,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

3,394    225 

Crocheron  v.  Savage,  75  N.  .7. 
Eq.  589,  73  Atl.  33,  23  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  679.  reversing  74  N.  .1. 
Eq.  629,  70  Atl.   353    ..    278, 

283,  286.     287 
Crockett     v.     McLanahan,     109 
Tenn.  517,  72   8.  W.  950.   61 

L.R.A.  914   533.  534,     535 

Croco  V.  Oregon  Short  Line  R. 
Co.,  18  Utah  311,  54  Pac.  985, 
44  L.R.A.  285  .  .  665,  670,  724. 

729      869 


are  to  pages.] 

Croft  V.  TTicks,  26  Tex.   383    .  . 

527,  612,  616,  620,  623,     724 
Cromack  v.  Ileathcote,  2  Brod.  & 
]?.  4.  6  E.  C.  L.  12,  4  Moo.  C. 

PI.  357   181,     196 

Crommelin  v.  Dinsmore,  1  N.  Y. 

City  Ct.  69   861 

Cronin   v.   O'Reiley,   7  N.  Y.  S. 

337   Ill 

Cronkhite  v.  Evans-Snider-Buel 
Co.,  6  Kan.  App.  173,  51  Pac. 
295  450^ 

Crook  V.  Crook,  14  Daly  298,  12 

N.  Y.   St.  Rep.   663    .  .      471 
V.  Wright,  1  R.  &   :\L  278. 

21  E.  C.  L.  438   523 

Crooker     v.     Hutchinson,     2     D. 
Chip.  (Vt.)   117   .  .   543, 

570.  578,  590,  594,     595 
V.  Hutchinson,  1  Vt.  73  .... 

567.    570,     582 
Cropsey    v.   Henderson,   63    Ind. 

268   1096 

Crosby  v.  Berger,  11  Paige    (N. 

Y.)'377,  42  Am.  Dec.  117    ..      171 
Crosby    V.    Hatch,    135    N.    W. 
1079.... 254,   809.    997, 

1000,  1005- 
V.  Kropf,  33  App.  Div.  440, 

54  N.  Y.  S.  70..  ..710,     781 
v.  Murphy,  8  Jr.  C.  L.  301     554 
Cross  V.   Ackley,   40  la.  493    ..      608- 
v.  Atcliison,     etc.,     R.     Co., 
141   Mo.   132,  42  S.  W. 

675    371,  712,     887 

V.  Bloomer,  6  Baxt.   (Tenn.) 

74    005 

V.  National   F.   Ins.   Co.   17 
Civ.  Proc.  199,  6  N.  Y'. 

S.   84    400 

V.  Riggins,   50   Mo.   335 

191,  190 
V.  State,  132  Ind.  65,  31  N. 

E.  473  145' 

Crossman  v.  Smith,  11 G  App. 
Div.    791,    102    N.    Y.    S.    IS 

812,  993,  1084 
Crothers    v.    Lee,    29    Ala.    337 

582,  593,     600' 
Crottv  V.  Eagle,  35  W.  Va.  143, 

13  "S.  E.  59 371,  3S5,     396 

V.  ]MacKenzie.   52  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    54 989,  1030' 

V.  ]\IcKenzie,  42  Super.  Ct. 

(N.  Y.)    192 802, 

989,  1048,   1072 


ixxxvui 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


1018 


701 


944 


526 

503 
86 


Crouch,  -Re,  41  ^Usq.  349,  84  X 

Y.  S.  936  

V.  Hoyt,  24  Civ.  Proc.  00, 
1  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  70, 
30  X.  Y.  S.  400.. 1043, 

1071,  1080 

Crouse  v.  :Morse,  49  la.  389 207 

Crow  V.   Yaeom,   11   Rob.    (La.) 

506    

Crowcll  V.  Tniax,  94  Mich.  585. 

54  X.  W.  384.  .  .788,  804,  883, 

885, 

■Crowley   v.   Le  Due,     21     Minn. 

412  ' 979,  980,  989,   1000 

Crozer  v.  Pilling,  4  B.  &  C.  26, 
10  E.  C.  L.  271,  6  Dowl.  &  R. 

129     525, 

Cruikshank  v.  Goodwin.  60  Hun 

026    mem.,    20    X.    Y.    S.    757 

250, 

Crum,  Re,  72  Minn.  401,  75  X. 

W.  385,   79   X.  W.  987 

Re,  7  X.  D.  310,  75  X.  W. 

257.. 1239,   1282,   1288, 

1292,    1300,    1324,   1327 
Crumlisli  v.  Shenandoah  Valley 
R.  Co.,  40  \Y.  Va.  027,  22  S. 

E.  90    729     705 

Crump   V.   Baker,     18    Ves.    Jr. 

(En<T.)   285   721 

Crye  v.  O'Xeal,    (Tex.)     135    S. 

W.   253    792 

Cullin-McCurdy    Con.str.    Co.    y. 
Vulcan   Iron    Works,   93   Ark. 

342,  124  S.  W.  1023 383, 

Cullison  V.  Lindsay,  108  la.  124, 
78  X.  \V.  847.  .  '242,  505,  585, 

960.  961,  793,  800,  945,     947 
Cullom  y.  Mock,    21    La.    Ann. 

687    884,  931, 

Cullop  V.   Leonard,   97   Va.  250, 

33  y.  E.  Oil    274, 

Gulp,  Re,  26  W.  X.  C.   (Pa.)   78 
Culver  V.  Barney,  14  Wend.   (X. 

Y.)    Kil    

V.  BrinkerhofT,   180  111.  548, 

54  X.  E.  585   

V.  Xeatcr,     116    Midi.     191. 

74  X.  W.  532 296, 

Cu  Iverliouse    v.    Marx,    39     La. 

Ann.  809,  2  So.  607 

CuinixThmd,  etc.,   R.  Co.  v.   Har- 
rison,   1    Ky.    I.,    itep.   411 

Ciunmin^rs.    lie,    IiZO    la.    421.   94 

\.    W.    1117    

<  iiniiMiriL'^    \.    Irviii,    Crcnii.)    59 
S.    W.    153    


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Cumraings  y.  Missouri,  4   Wall. 
277,   18  U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

356    83 

V.  Thomas,     1     W.     X.     C. 

(Pa.)     311     878 

Cummins,  Re,  196  Fed.  224 820 

v.  Ileald,    24    Kan.    600.    36 

Am.    Rep.    264 371, 

372,  520,     522 
y.  McLain,      2      Ark.      402 

521,  598,  601 
Cundiff  y.  McLean,  40  Tex.  391  369 
Cunning  v.  Kemp,  22   Wis.  509 

929,  932,     962 
Cunningham,    Re,    9    Ohio    Dec. 
(Reprint)         717,        16 
Cine.       L.       Bui.       447 

1247,     1317 
y.  Coyle,     2     Willson     Civ. 

Cas.  Ct.  App.  §  424.  .  .      526 
y.  Jones,    37    Kan.    477,    15 
Pac.    572,    1     Am.    St. 

Rep.     257 294,     290 

V.  McCready,    219     Pa.    St. 

594,  69   Atl.   82 775 

y.  :\IcGradv,  2  Baxt. 

(TennO     141  •■  •; 1052 

v.  Tucker,      14      I'la.      251 

125,     350 
V.  Widing.   5   Abb.   Pr.    (X. 

Y.)    413    974 

Cunnion,  Re,  201  X.  Y.  123, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912 A  834,  94  X. 
E.  648,  allirming  135  App. 
Div.    864,    120    X.    Y.    S.    206 

158.  185,  199,     211 
Cuppy   v.    Coffman,    82    la.    214, 

47  X.  W.  1005    125 

Currev  v.  Butelier,  37  Ore.  380, 

01  Pac.  631 529,  556,  557, 

581,     582 

Currie,  Re,  25  Grant  Ch.  (X. 

C.)  338 1168 

V.  Covvles,      (i      Bosw.      (X. 

Y.)    452    950 

Currier   v.   Boston,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

37  X.  H.  223 988,   1030 

Curry    v.    (  harles    Warner    Co., 

2  "Marv.    (  Del.)     98,    42     Atl. 
425      204 

Curtis,  Re,  51   App.  Div.  434,  01 

N.    Y.    S.    (191 C>]r^,     010 

V.   Kngle.  4Edw.  (X.V.)  117     543 
V.  Metropolitan   St.  R.  Co., 
118    Mo.    App.    341,    94 

8.  VV.  7(i2 808,  979, 

1042,  1045,  1071,  lOSa 


409 


9.34 

740 

784 

421 


31- 


378 


(i(;9 


308 


221 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


lx> 


XXXIX 


[RoftTOIlCOS 

'Ciutis    V.    M('troj)olitaii    St.    U. 
Co.,   12.5  Mo.  App.  30i), 

102  S.  \V.  02 728, 

SO!),  8U.   1042 
V.  Richards,    4    Idalio    434. 
40     Pac.     57,     !):>     Am. 
St.  Hep.  134.. 254,  262, 

440,  972,  974,  1036 
V.  Union  Homestead  Assoc, 
126    La.    959,    53    So. 

63    352 

Cushman    v.     Brown,    6    Paige 

(N.  Y.)   539   538 

Cusick     V.     Boyne,    1    Cal.   App. 
643,    82   Pac'   985.  .  .780,   785, 

879,  926,  928,     944 
Custer  V.  Grcenpoint  Ferry  Co., 

98  N.  Y.  600,  5  Civ.  Proc  146     996 
Cuthbert,  Ex  p.  1  Madd.   (Eng.) 

77    537 

V.  Galloway,  35   Fed.  466..      641 
Cutting    V.    Jessmer,    101    App. 
Div.  283,  15  N.   Y.  Ann.  Cas. 

423,  91  N.  i.  S.  6.58 417,     418 

Cutts   V.    State,    54    Fla.   21,   45 

So.  491    145,     146 

V.  York    j\Ifg.    Co.,    18    Me. 

190    376 

Cyc  V.  O'Neal   (Te.\.)   135  S.  W. 

'253    799 

Cvphert  v.  McCiune.  22  Pa.  St. 

"195 417,  440,  443,  492, 

518,     567 


D. 


Dada  v.  Piper.  41  Hun  250,  2  N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  152 119,  122,     533 

Dae  V.  Bird,  7  C.  &  P.  6,  32  E. 

C.  L.  415   347 

Dalilstrom    v.    Featherstone,    IS 
Idaho     179,      110      Pac     243 

1065,   1070,   1071,  1079 
Dahms  v.  Sears,  13  Ore.  47,  11 

Pac  891    601,  662,  677,     729 

Daigle  v.  Bird,  22  La.  Ann.  138 

529,     945 
Dailey  v.   Devlin,   21    App.  Div. 
62,    47    N.    Y.    S.    29g 

781,  792.     959 
V.  Well  brock.  05    App.    Div. 
523,    72    N.    Y.  S.  848 

609.     874 
v.  Donath.  100  111.  App.  52     639 
Dailv  V.  Mondav,  32  Fed.  141  .  .      328 
Dakin,    Re   4    Hill    I X.    Y.)    42 

592.  OOI).  614,     615 


are  to  pages.] 

Dalbkermeyer  v.  Scholtes,    3    S. 

D.  183.  52  N.  \V.  871 418,     455 

Dale  V.  lUchards.  21  D.  C.  312.  .   607 
V.  State.  88  Ga.  552,  15  S. 

E.  287 1122 

Dalton  V.  West  End  St.  R.  Co., 
159  Mass.  221,  34  N.  E.  261, 

3S  Am.  St.  Rep.  410 388,     399 

Dalton  Citv  Co.  v.  Dalton  Mfg. 

Co.,  33  Ga.  243 415,  418,     419 

Daly  V.  Duffy,  26  La.  Ann.  468 

124,     127 
V.  nines,   55    Ga.   470..  898, 

926,     930 
V.  Maitland,  88  Pa.  St.  384, 

32   Am.   Rep.   457 775 

Damman   v.    Bancroft.   43   Misc. 

078,  88  N.  Y.  S.  386 909 

Damron    v.    Robertson,    12    Lea 

(Tenn.)    372    986 

Dane  Countv  v.  Smith,  13  Wis. 

585,  80  Am.  Dec.  754    .  .    146,     175 
Daneri   v.  Gazzola,   2   Cal.   App. 

351,  83  Pac  455 349.  47S, 

485,     486 
Danford.   Re,    157   Cal.  425,    lOS 

Pac  322 272,  1212,  1265, 

1273,  1284,  12S8 
Danforth  v.  Egan.  23  S.  D.  43, 
20  Ann.  Cas.  418.   119  N.  W. 
1021,    139  Am.   St.   Rep.   1030 

11,   1093,   1169,   1174,  1175 
Dangertield  v.  Thruston,  8  Mart. 
N.  S.    (La.)    232    ..    250,  416, 

426,  432,     494 
Daniel  v.  Daniel,  39  Pa.  St.  194     211 
v.  Rav,    1    Hill  L.    (S.  C.) 

32     478,     483 

Daniels    v.    New^     London,     58 
Conn.  156,  19  Atl.  573, 

7  L.R.A.  563 491 

V.  Pratt,  74  Tenn.  443 270 

v.  Pratt," 2  Tenn.  Ch.  116.  .      268 
v.  State    (Tex.)    77    S.   W. 

215    1099 

Danlev  v.   Crawl,  28  Ark.   95 .  . 

371,     372 
Danville,  etc,  R.  Co.  v.  Rhodes, 
180  Pa.  St.  157,  36  Atl.  648.. 

15,  417,  422,  427,  428,  436,     437 
Danziger  v.  Pittsfield  Shoe  Co., 
204     111.     145,     68   N.   E.   534, 
107   HI.  App.  47.  .  ..380,  383, 

391,     499 
D'Aquin.    Succession    of.    9    La. 

Ann.  400    1153 


XC  TABLE    OF    CASES. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

D"Arcy    v.    Ketchum,    11    How.  Davies,  Ex  p.,  40  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.) 

165,  13  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)   048.  .  .  .      44G  40    1333: 

Dare  v.  Allen,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  288.  .  539               Ee,  168  N.  Y.  89,  61  N.  E. 

Darlington    v.    Warner,   14  Ind.  118,  56  L.R.A.  855,  re- 

449    150                        versing    55     App.     Div. 

Darmstadt,    Re,    35    App.    Div.  245,  07  N.  Y.  S.  492..    1153 

285,  55  N.  Y.  S.  22 1208      Re,  93  Pa.  St.  IIG,  39  Am. 

Darrin  v.  Clay,  143  App.  Div.  Rep.  729... 1109,  1172, 

937  mem.,  128  N.  Y.  S.  346  1220,  1227,  1273,  1278 

767,  929      Re,  13  Pliila.  (Pa.)  65,  3G 

Darrow,  Re,  175  Ind.  44,  92  N.  Leg.  Int.  434,  7  W.  X. 

E.  309 1177,  1298,  C.  500  1298 

1304,  1308      V,  Clough,  8  Sim.  (Eng.) 

Re.  (Ind.)  83  X.  E.  1020.  .  262  307 

1282,  1298               V.  Jenkins,    1    Dowl.    &    L. 

Dartnell,  Re.    [1895]   1   Ch.  474,  321,  11  M.  &  W.  745,  7 

64    L.    .J.    Ch.    34],    12  Jur.   801    524 

Rep.   237,   72   L.   T.  N. '  Davis  v.  Bowe,    54    Super.    Ct. 

S.  404,  43  W.  R.  644 .  .  537                         520,    25    N.    Y.    Wklv. 

V.  Howard,   4   B.   &   C.  345,  Dig.    455.    affirmed    118 

10  E.  C.  L.  351,  0  Dowl.  N.  Y.  55,  23  N.  E.  166 

&    P.    438 585                                                              411,  1043 

Daughdrill    v.    Daughdrill,    108  v.  Clialfant.  SI  Cal.  627,  22 

Ala.   321,   19   So.    185    ..    420,  Pac.   972    561 

432,  433,  434,  435                v.  Chase.    159   Ind.   242,    64 

Daum    V.     Conley,   27    Colo.   50,  X.   E.   88,   853,  95   Am. 

59   Pac.   753    400  St.    Rep.    204 755,     756 

Dauncev    v.    Hollowav,     [1901]  v.  Chattanooga     Union     R. 

2  K. 'B.    (Eng.)    44] 134,     141  Co.,  05  Fed.  359 1213 

Dans    v.    Xussberger,  '  25     App.  v.  Cohn,   90   Mo.   App.   587, 

Div.  185,  49  X.  Y.  S.  291 143  70  S.  W.  727 414,     447 

Davenport   v.   Lvnch,   51    X.   C.  v.  Com.,   104  Mass.  241,  41 

545     '. 634,  636                        X.    E.    292,    30    L.R.A. 

David   Adler,  etc.,   Clothing  Co.  743    751 

v.   Hellnian,   55   Xeb.    200,    75  v.  Countv,      1      Lane.      Bar 

X.  \V.  877    185,     193  (Pa.)    10]    1124 

Davidoff   v.    Wlieeler,    etc.,   Mfg.  v.  Davis.    141    Ind.    3{i7,    40 

Co.,  14  Misc.  451),  35  N.  Y.  S.  X.  E.  803 907 

1019,  affirmed  Hi  :\Iisc.  31,  37  v.  Davis,  90  Fed.  791.. 974,  1087 

X.  Y.  S.  601 040                V.  Downer,    10    Vt.    529     .  . 

Davidson  v.  Alfaro.  Ki  Hun    (N.  805.     952- 

y.)    3-,3    1054                V.  Farwell.    SO   Vt.    160.    07 

V.  Friedman,   140   Fed.  853.  Atl-  ^-^ 741,  871, 

72  C.  C.  A.  553.  .  .  .819,  820                     ,                     "-^•>•  ^'^'■^-  i^"'-'-   "^35. 

V.  cifford,  100  X.  c.  18,  (i  ^^  ^'''1!''-;IJ,.  -^''■-   '^"-  ^-^    .,..,, 

S.  E.  718 344,  345                      ,..-^\'-     "    ;\.VW.ni 

,..     ,,   ,        n,_  V.    !■  i.sclicr.  90  A.    i.  S.  301 

v.  .Jennings,    2/     I  olo.    18/,  q^^-,      ^,q 

00  I'ac.  354.  8.3  Am.  St.  Fitznianville,  3  How.  Pr! 

Rep.  49,  4H  L.K.A.  .340     8.54  (N.  Y.)108 474 

V.  La      Plata     County,     2(i  y    Freetliv.     24     Q.     15.    D. 

(  olo.  549,  59  Pac.  40.  ( En<^  )    519                            ."iO^ 

999.    1051,  1002                 V.  flemnudl,  73  Md.  5;!0.  21 

V.   Munsey,     29     Ctnli      ISI,  Atl.    712 89(i.     902 

KO    I'ac.   743 852                v.  (.'owen,    17   .Me.   387    ....      541 

v.    i:()/i.-r,  23    -Mo.   387 384                 v.    Mall.  90  Mo.  059.  3  S.  \\. 

Davie  V.   Wisher,  72   III.  262...      030  382 451,    456,    458,     50» 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XCl 


[References  ar 

Davis  V.  Home  Tns.  Co.,   (Tenii.) 

loo   S.   \V.    131 38.1,     302 

V.  Jaekson.   8(1   Ga.   138.    12 

S.  E.  20D    .  .   noi.  1004,   1083 
V.  John   Monat   Liiinher   Co. 
2    Colo.    App.    381,    31 

Tac.    187    401 

V.  Kline,   9(i   Mo.   401,  9   S. 

\V.    724,    2    L.R.A.    78 

234,  294,  29(),  297,  299,     -jUS 
V.  Lee,     20     La.     Ann.    248 

391,  392 
V.  Linn  County,  24  Ta.  508  715 
V.  ]\leArt!iiir.       3       Greenl. 

(Me.)   27 541 

V.  Me^nilan,  142  Mich.  391, 

7  Ann.  Cas.  854,  105  N. 

W.    8G2,    113    Am.    St. 

Eep.      585,      3      L.R.A. 

(N.S.)   928 638,     G41 

V.  McXees.         8         Humpli. 

(Tenn.)     40    119 

V.  Morgan,    19    Mont.    141, 

47    Pac.    793    155, 

163,  166,     191 
V.  New   York,    etc.,    R.    Co. 

70  Minn.  37,  72  N.  W. 

823    198,  201,     203 

V.  Settle,  43  W.  Va.  17,  20 

S.  E.  557  685 

V.  Severance,  49  Minn.  528, 

52   N.    W.   140    .  .    378, 

384,  398 
V.  Sharron,      15      B.     Mon. 

(Kv.)    04    662,     981 

V.  Smith,  43  Vt.  269  ..293,  299 
V.  Smith.  48  Vt.  52  .  .  950,  959 
V.  Solomon,    25    Misc.    095, 

56  N.  Y.   S.  SO    250 

V.  State,    11    Ga.    App.    10, 

74  S.  E.  442 1121,  1122 

V.  State,   92   Tenn.   034.   23 

S.  W.  59    1274,  1327 

V.  Stith,     (Ky.)    11    S.    W. 

810    ....' 285 

V.  Sturtevant,    4    Duer    (N. 

Y.)    148    851 

V.  Trimble,  76  Ark.  115,  88 

S.   W.  920    888,     895 

V.  Swedish    American    Nat. 

Bank.  78  Minn.  408,  80 

N.    W.    953.    81    N.    W. 

210,    79    Am.    St.    Rep. 

400 800,     948 


e  to  pages.] 

Davis  V.  Walker,  131  Ala.  204, 
31   So.  554   . .    780,  885, 

888,   891,   902,     924 
V.  Walker,    5    Ont.    L.    Rep. 

173    289 

V.  Webber,  06  Ark.  190,  49 
S.  W.  822,  74  Am.  St. 
81,  45  L.R.A.  196.. 663, 
664,  075,  096,  701,  728, 
754,  755,  750,  700,  704, 

784,     981> 
Davy  V.  Fidelity  &  Casualty  Ins. 
Co.,  78  Ohio  St.  250,  85  N.  E. 
504,  125  Am.  St.  Rep.  094,  17 

L.R.A.  (N.S.)    443    072,     755 

Dawes     v.     Glasgow,     1     Finn. 

(Wis.)    171   133 

Dawson   v.   Buford,   70   la.   127, 

30  N.  W.  35    527 

V.  Compton,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.) 

421    ..    574,    609,    623,  1314 
V.   Copeland,   173   Ala.   267, 

55  So.  600    278 

V.  Peterson,  110  Mich.  431, 
68  N.  W.  246   ....  723, 

727,   783,     873 
V.   Sehloss,  93   Cal.   194,   29 

Pac.   31    342,     639 

Day,  Re,  181  111.  73,  54  X.  E. 
646,  50  L.R.A.  519  .  . 
5,  12,  15,  23.  24,  31,  33 

34,  35,  58,  69,  72,       87 
V.  Adams,  03  N.  C.  254    .  .      433 
V.  Bowman,    109    Ind.    383. 
10  N.  E.  126   ....   999, 

1006,  1083 
V.  Boyd,    6    Heisk.     (Tenn.) 

458    362,     523 

V.    Buller,    3    Wils.    C.    PI. 

(Eng.)    59     139 

V.  Larsen,   30  Ore.   247,   47 

Pac.   101    995 

V.  Moore,   13   Gray   522    .  .      205 
V.  Welles,     31     Conn.     344 

253,     562 
V.  Woodworth,       13       How. 
363,  14  U.   S.    (L.  ed.) 

181   850 

V.  Wriiiht,  233  111.  218.  84 

N.'^E.  226    ..    273.  284.     285 
D.  C.  Heath  &  Co.  v.  Com.,  129 

Ky.   835,   113   S.   W.   69    409 

Deal    v.    Tower,    1    Phila.    (Pa.) 

268,  8  Leg.  Int.  238   358 

Dean  v.  Bigelow,  19  D.  C.   570, 

19  Wash.  L.  Rep.  225 .  .      620 


XCll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Dean  v.  Driggs,  82  Hun  5G1,  31 

N.  Y.  S.  548 263,  264 

V.    Radford,    141    Mich.    36, 
104  N.  W.  329,  12  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  354.-553,     589 
V.   State,   147   Ind.   215,   46 

N.    E.    528    573 

V.    Stone,    2    Okla.    13,    35 

Pac.  578   1251,  1305 

De  Angelis  v.  Savings  Bank,  74 

Misc.  394,  132  N.  Y.  S.  295 .  .      262 
Dearborn  v.  Dearborn,  15  Mass. 

316 567.  570,  582,     594 

Dearing  v.  Fletcher,  37  ]Mo.  App. 

122   951,  960,     964 

De  Armas's  Case,  10  Mart.  (La.) 

123   1196,  1198 

Death  v.  Pittsburg  Bank,  1  la. 

382 4G9 

De  Bode's  Case,  8  Q.  B.  208,  55 

E.  C.  L.  208,  10  Jur.   217    .  .      338 
Decatur  Land  etc.,  Co.,  98  Ala. 

461.  13  So.  368   709 

De  Celis  v.  Brunson.  53  Cal.  372 

307,   318,     949 
De   Ciiambrun   v.   Cox,    60    Fed. 

471.  20  U.   S.  App.  347,  9  C. 

C.  A.  86    984 

Decker  v.  Becker,  143  Wis.  542, 

128  N.  W.  67  687 

Deegan  v.  Deegan,  22  Nev.  185, 

37  Pac.  360,  58  Am.  St.  Rep. 

742 417,  428  444 

Deen  v.  Milne,  41  Hun   (N.  Y.) 
645   mem.,   4   N.   Y.   St.   Rep. 

129    487 

Deering   v.   Holcomb,    26    Wash. 

588,  67  Pac.  240,  561.. 

268,     269 
V.  Hurt,  (Tex.)  2  S.  W. 

42  312 

V.  McCaliill,  51  Super.  Ct., 
263,  aflirnied  106  N.  Y. 
660,  13  N.  E.  934.. 912,  947 
V.  Schrever,  27  Misc.  237, 
58  N.  Y.  S.  485,  af- 
firmed 40  App.  Div. 
633,   58   N.   Y.   S.   1139 

949,     950 
V.  Sclircyor.  171  X.  Y.  451, 
61  X.  ]•:.  179,  modifying 
58    Ai)p.    Div.    322*    68 

N.  Y.  S.  1015 723. 

731,  734.  739.  76L  874,  1081 
De  Figiinicrc  v.   ^Ouiig,  2   INibt. 

(N.  Y.)  670 1054 


De  Forest  v.  Andrews.  27  Misc. 
145,    29   Civ.   Pro.    250,   58    N. 

Y.  S.  358 681 

De  fjraffenreid  v.  St.  Louis  S. 
W.   R.   Co.,   66   Ark.    260,    50 

S.  W.  272   1009,  1040,  1046 

Dehn    v.    Dehn.    170    Midi.    407, 

136  N.  W.  453    426,     431 

Deisher  v.   Gelire,   45   Kan.   583, 

26    Pac.    3     851 

Deiter   v.    Riser,    158    Cal.    259, 

110  Pac.  921   244.  246,     247 

De  .Tarnatt  v.  Marquez,  127  Cal. 
558,   60   Pac.   45,  78   Am.   St. 

Rep.   90    128,     130 

Dejonge  v.  Brenneman,  23  Hun 

(N.'y.)  332 852 

Delahuntv  v.  Canfield,  118  App. 
Div.  883,  103  N.  Y.  S.  939.. 

750,     785 
De  Lamater  v.  McCaskie,  4  Doni. 

(N.    Y.)    549     1035.  1038 

Delaney  v.  Husband,  64  N.  .J.  I^. 

275,  45  Atl.  265  .  .  253,     510 
V.  Miller.  84  Hun  244,  1  X. 
Y.    Ann.    (^as.    266,    32 
N.  Y.  S.  505,  alFn-niing 
78  Hun  18,  28  N.  Y.  S. 

1059   1056 

Delano's   Case,   58   N.   H.   5,   42 

Am.  Rep.  555  .  .  lltJS,  1222,  1264 
Delaware  v.  Emerson,  8  Fed.  411  1118 
Delger   v.  Jacobs,   19   Cal.   App. 

197,  125  Pac.  258  ....  179,  224 
Delhi  V.  Graham,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

407   419.  429,     430 

Dell  V.  Marvin,  41  Fla.  221,  26 
So.  188.  79  Am.  St.  Rep.  171, 

45  L.R.A.  201  854 

Dellenbaugh,  Re,  9  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  325,  380,  17  Ohio  Cir. 
Ct.  106,  affirmed  62  Ohio  St. 
658,  58  N.  E.  1098  ....  1166, 
1167,   1176,  1177,   1257.  1269, 

1270,   1272,  1290 
Delman,  Re,  139  Cal.  XIX  mem., 

72  Pac.  402  1272 

Dclinas,  Re,  139  Cal.  XIX  mom., 

72  Pac.  402   1176 

De  Long  v.   Muskegon   Booming 
Co.,  88  Midi.  282,  50  X. 

W.   297    895 

V.  Muskegon  C-ountv,  111 
Midi.  568.  69  X.  W. 
1115.  3  Dclroit  Leg.  X. 
767   716 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XClll 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


De  Louis  v.  Meek.  2  G.  (5reene 

(la.)  55,  50  Am.  Dec.  491 440 

Demarest,  Re,  11  App.  Div.  156, 

42  N.  Y.   S.   444    280.     282 

De  Mets  v.  Dagron,  53  N.  Y.  635     396 
De  Montague  v.  Bacharach,  187 

Mass.  128,  72  N.  E.  938  .  .416,     455 
Dempsey   v.   Dorrance,   151   I\Io. 
App.    429,    132    S.    W. 

33 244.     792 

V.  Laurence,    Gilmer     (Va.) 

333    143 

V.  Schawacker.  140  Mo.  680, 
38  S.  W.  954.  41  S.  W. 

1100   884 

V.  Wells.  109  Mo.  App.  470, 
84  S.  W.  1015  ....  781, 

881,  883,  958,     960 
Dempster   v.    Lansingh,   234   111. 
381,  84  N.  E.  1032,  reversing 

128  111.  App.  388    857 

De  Mund  Lumber  Co.  v.  Stilwell, 

8  Ariz.  1,  68  Pac.  543   .  .   882,     962 
Den  V.  Fen,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.   (N. 

Y.)    303    537 

V.  Geiger,  9  N.  J.  L.  225   .  .      131 
V.  Heister,  17  N.  .J.  L.  438 

804.    1040.  1045 
Denison     First     Xat.     Bank     v. 

Hodges.    (Tex.)    62  S.  W.  827     712 
Denman    v.   Johnston,   85   Mich. 

389,  48  N.  W.  565 728 

Dennett  v.  Cutts,  11  N.  H.  163 

994,  1006.  1035,  1036 
V.  Reisdorfer,  15  S.  D.  466, 

90  N.  W.  138   ....  125,     130 
Denney  v.  Parker,  10  Wash.  218, 

38  Pac.  1018    375 

Denning  v.  Butcher,  91  la.  425. 

59   N.  W.  69 212 

Dennis,  ex  p.,  48  Ala.  304   482 

V.  First      Nat.      Bank.       33 

Wash.  161,  73  Pac.  1125     875 

V.  Jones,  31  Misc.  606   250 

V.  Kent  Circuit  Judge,  42 
Mich.  249,  3  N.  W.  950 

844,   1018.  1021 
V.  Moses,  18  Wash.  537,  52 
Pac.     333.     40     L.R.A. 

302   776 

V.  Seattle  First  Nat.  Bank 
33  Wash.  161,  73  Pac. 
1125 724,     831 


Dennison  v.  Lawrence,  44  App. 
Div.  287,  60  N.  Y.  S.  748,  re- 
versing 27  Misc.  99,  29  Civ. 
Pro.  176,  r,8  N.  Y.  S.  142,  ap- 
peal dismissed,  162  N.  Y.  649, 

57  N.  E.  1108 912 

Dennistoun's   Claim,   12   Op. 

Atty-Gen.  206  1138,  1140 

Denny,  Re,  156  Ind.  104,  59  N. 

E.  359,  51  L.R.A.  722..   59 
V.  Anderson,  36  La.  Ann. 

762  678 

V.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

3.805  489,  492 

Dent  V.  Arthur,  156  Mo.  App. 
472,  137  S.  W.  285  .  .  (;59, 

661,  662,  673 
Denton  v.  Emburv,  10  Ark.  228 

598,^599,  601.  604,  60S 
V.  Noyes,  6  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 
296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237.. 
417,  439,  444,  445,  492, 
493.  51S,  5G3,  567,  623 
V.  Ontario  County  Nat. 
Bank,  150  N.  Y.  126,  44 

N.  E.  781 269,  270 

V.  Willcox,  2  La.  Ann.  60 .  .      67^ 
Dentzel  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 

Md.   434,   45   Atl.   201    

231,  373,   374,     522" 
Denunzio    v.    Scholtz,    117    Ky. 
182,  4  Ann.  Cas.  529,  77  S.  W. 

715 157,     193 

Denver  v.  Roane.  99  U.  S.  355, 
25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  476   ...  831, 

835,     837 
Denver,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  5  McCrary  (U.  S.) 

287   630 

Denver  Tramway  Co.  v.  Owens, 
20  Colo.   107,  36  Pac.  848    .  . 

162,  188,  189,   190.   191,     196 

Department    of    Public    Works, 

Re.  167  N.  Y.  501,  60   N.  E. 

781,   modifving   58    App.   Div. 

459,  69  N.*Y.'"S.  413    ..    764,  1069> 

Derickson  v.   McCardle,   2   How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)   196   538. 

Deringcr,  Re.  12  Phila.  (Pa.) 
217.  34  Leg.  Ins.  248,  4  W.  N. 

C.  200    1249' 

De  Rose  v.  Fav,  3  Edw.  (N.  Y.) 

369.  4  Edw.  40   272,  274, 

275,  278.  282,  283,  610»  fll,     946J 


XCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

De  Roiifignv  v.  Peale,  3  Taunt. 

(Eng.)   484,  12  Rev.  Rep.  687 

537,     566 

Derr  v.  Wilson.  84  Ky.  14, 444 

Derrickson  v.  Codv,  7  Pa.  St.  27 

516,   588,   590,     605 
Derringer  v.   Pugh,  3   Ohio  Cir. 

Dec.  706,  7  Ohio  Qr.  Ct.  158     878 
Dervvort  v,  Loomer,  21  Conn.  255 

352,  383,     503 
Desman  v.  Butler,  114  Minn.  362, 
131  N.  W.  463    .  .    996. 

1015,    1064,   1065,  1066 
v..  Butler,    118    Minn.    198, 

136  N.  W.  747    ..1042,  1045 
De  Santis  v.  Canadian    Pac.    R. 

Co.,  14  Ont.  L.  Rep.  108 995 

Des  Moines  Gas  Co.  v.  West,  50 

la.   16 986 

Des  ]\Ioines  Improvement,  7  Op. 

Atty-Gen.  691 1141 

Detroit  v.  Whittemore,  27  Mich. 

281  .  .  231,  701,  723,  796,  890,     945 
Detroit  Free  Press,  Atkinson,  46 

Mich.  341,  9  N.  W.  501    ....      135 
Deuser  v.  Hamilton,  52  Mo.  App. 

394    207 

V.  Walkup,  43  Mo.  App.  62.5     207 
Deutsch  V.  Webb,    10    Abb.    N. 

Cas.   (X.  Y.)   393    538.  1075 

DeVall  V.  DeVall,  57  Ore.   128. 

109    Pac.    755.    110    Pac.    705 

236,  251,  252,  325,  466,     476 
Dcveiibaugh  v.  Xifer,  3  Ind.  App. 

379,  29  N.  E.  923   492.     494 

Dever  Tramway  Co.  v.  Owens,  20 

Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848   197 

Devinnev    v.    Norris,    8    Watts 

(Pa.)  '314   296,  298,  302,     306 

Devlin  v.  New  York,  15  Abb.  Pr. 

N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  31 455 

Devoe,  Re,  Myr.  Prob.  (Cal.)  6  484 
Devoy  v.  Bowyer,  3  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  247 1056 

De    Wandelaor    v.    Sawdey,    78 

Conn.   654,  03    Atl.   446," 

1030,  1050,  1075 
Dewar    v.    Orr,    3     Ch.    Cliamh. 

(Ont.)     224     483,     484 

Dewcv  V.  Koniar.  21   S.   D.  117, 

no"  .\.  W.  90   215 

DeVN'inter    v.    Tlioma.s,    34    .Xpp. 

Cas.     (D.    C.)     80,    27    E.K.A. 

(\.S.)    634    9X1 

Dcwilt   v.    11. •iron,   39    Tc.\.   675     .'')15 


are  to  pages.] 

Dcwitt  v.  Perkins,  22  Wis.  473  .      1G6 
V.  Stender,   52    Hun    615,   5 

N.  Y.  602 261 

DeWolf  v.   Strader,   26   111.   22.5, 

79  Am.  Dec.  371 179,  185, 

193,     230 
Dexter    Imp.    Assoc,    v.    Dexter 
Christian  College,  234  Mo.  715, 

138  S.  W.  40   417 

Dev,  Re,  156  App.  Div.  864,  142 

N.  Y.  62    615 

V.  Hathawav  Printing,  etc., 
Co.,  41  N.  J.  'Eq.   419,  4  Atl. 

675 417,     428 

Devo  v.  Van  Valkenburgh,  5  Hill 

(N.  Y.)  242 523,     524 

Diamond  Soda  Water  Mfg  Co.  v. 
Hegeman,  74  App.  Div.  430, 
77  N.  Y.  S.  417    ..    385,  404, 

405,  408 
Dibble  v.  Truluck,  12  Fla.  185  561 
Dick   V.   State.   107   Md.   21,   68 

Atl.  286,  576   14 

Dickens,   Re,   67   Pa.   St.   169,  5 

Am.  Rep.  420   1261 

Dicken's  Case,  67  Pa.  St.  169,  5 

Am.  Rep.  420 1171,  1209, 

1263,  1264 
Dicker  v.  Cohen,  81  N.  Y.  S.  189. 

277  280 

Dickerson   v.   Hodges,   43   N.   J. 
Eq.  46,   10  Atl.   Ill    .. 

384,  386,     409 
V.  Mashek  Engineerinrr  Co., 
76  Misc.  263.  134  N.  Y. 

S.  940   882,     945 

V.  Pvle.    4    Phila.    259.    18 

Leg.  Int.  37  . . 677,  729,     732 
v.  Schener,    56     Super.    Ct. 
605,  1  N.  Y.  S.  419,  af- 
firmed 121  N.  Y.  671.  24 

N.  E.  1094   770,     917 

Dickinson    v.    Bradford,   59    Ala. 
581,  31  Am.  Rep.  23   .  . 

742,  747,     748 
v.  Devlin,  46  Super.  Ct.  (N. 

Y.    232    878.   879,     881 

V.  Dustin,  21  Midi.  561   ...    1289 
v.  Ritcliic.  50  Wis.  365,  7  N. 

W.  305 1036 

v.  Bills,   144   Wis.   171,   128 

N.   W.  868    155 

V.  Wright,  52  .Misc.  585,  24 
Am.  Rep.  677   ....   371 

372.  373,     522 
Didi.T  V.  Kerr,  12  Cill  &  •).  (Md.) 
499    461 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


XCV 


[IloftToncos 

Diodiic'k  V.  Richloy,  2  Kill    (X. 

V.)    271    491 

Diofondorf  v.  House,  9  llow.  I'r. 

(N.  Y.)  24;] 470 

T)iehl    V.    Fricstcr,    37    Oliio    St. 

473 1055 

Dieiist    V.     McCatl'rev,     24     Civ. 

Prop.  238,  32  N.  Y.  S.  818   .  .      986 
Dietrich   v.   Mitchell,   43    111.   40. 

92  Am.  Dec.  99   169,     198 

Dietz  V.  McCallum,  44  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)   403 104.'3,   1049 

V.  State,  149  Wis.  462,  Ann. 
Cas.  1913  C  732,  136  X. 

W.  166 146 

Diocr.s.  Ex  p.,  50  Ala.  78   .  .1099,  1128 
■  Dignowitty,  Behreiis,  4  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  201,  23  S.  W.  288 778 

Digs,  Ex  p.,  50  Ala.  78    1099 

Dikeman  v.  Arnold,  78  Mich.  455, 

44  X.  W.  407 180,     183 

Dillard    v.    Crocker,    Speer    Eq. 

(S.  C.)   20 428 

Dilley  v.  Van  Wie,  6  Wis.  209.  .      493 
DlWon  V.  :\IcManus,  121  Mo.  App. 
37,  97  S.  W.  971    .... 

953,  705,     887 
V.  Pvand,    15   Colo.    372,    25 

Pac.   185    426 

V.  State,  6  Te.x.  55  .  .  1244, 

1251,  1311 
V.  Watkins,     2     Speer     L. 

(S.  C.)  445   356 

V.  Watson,  3  Xeb.  (unoffi- 
cial) Rep.  530,  92  X.  W. 
156    .  .    371,    372,    373. 

374.  710,     964 
Dills  V.  Auxier,  85  S.  W.  743,  27 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  531 934 

Dimick   v.   Cooley,   3   Civ.   Proc. 

(N.  Y.)    141    874,   996 

1030,  1077,  1079 
Dimin,  Re,  146  Fed.  402,  17  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  119 819 

Dimpfel  v.  Wilson,  107  Md.  329, 
15  Ann.  Cas.  753.  68  Atl.  561, 
13  L.R.A.(N.S.)    1180    ..    334,     336 
Dinkel  v.  Wehle.  11  Abb.  X.  Cas. 

(X.    Y.)    124    544 

V.  Wehle,  63  How.  Pr.   (X. 

Y.)  298 543 

Dinkelspiel  v.  Pons,  119  La.  236, 
43  So.  1018   .  .    701.  781,  934, 

936.   941.     964 
Dinsmore  v.  State.  61  Xeb.  418. 
85  X.  W.  445   1114 


are  to  pages.] 

Disbarment  of  Lyons,  Re,  162 

Mo.  Ap]).  688.  145  S.  W.  844  1307 
Disbarment  Proceedings,  Re,  (X. 

D.)  140  X.  W.   710  1293 

Disliaw    V.    Wadleiuh,    15    App. 
Div.   205.   4   X.   Y.   Ann.   Cas. 

170,  44  X.  Y.  S.  207 524,     525 

Dismukes  v.  Xoxubee  Count}',  58 

Miss.  612,  38  Am.  Rep.  339.  .      713 
Distilled  Spirits,  The,   11   Wall. 

356,  20  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   I(i7     269 
District  Attorney  v.  Lvnn  &   B. 

R.  Co.,  16  Cray  (Mass.)  242.  .    1154 
Ditchburn.  Ex  p.,  32  Ore.  538,  52 

Pac.  694   1242.  1322 

Ditmas  V.  Hitchings,  29  X.  Y.  S. 

776   881 

Ditmars     v.     Sackett,     81     Hun 

317,  30  X.  Y.  S.  721 343 

Dixon  v.  Floyd,  73  S.  C.  202,  53 

S.  E.  107  389,  300 

V.  Parmelee,    2    Vt.    185    .  . 

159.     188 
V.  Wilkinson,  4  Drew.  614,  4 

De  G.  &  J.  508 613 

Doan  v.  Dow,  8  Ind.  App.  324,  35 

X.  E.  709  197 

Dobbins  v.  Dupree.  39  (i.  A.  394 

415.  420.  443,  492,     493 
v.  Stevens,  17  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 

13,   298,     302 

Dobbs  v.  Campbell,  66  Kan.  805, 

72  Pac.  273 601,     880 

Dobrv   v.  Western   j\Ifg.  Co.,  57 

Xeb.  228,  77  X.  W.  656    ....      132 
Dockerv    v.    McLellan,    93    Wis. 
381,  "67  X.  W.  733    ....    277. 

665.  743,     749 
Dockham  v.  New  Orleans,  26  La. 

Ann.  302   495 

V.  Potter,  27  La.  Ann.  73.  . 

416,  420,  426.  494.     495 
Dodd  V.  Brott,  1  :Minn.  270,  66 

Am.  Dec.  541   1004 

V.  Hein.  26   Tex.   Civ.  App. 

164,  62  S.  W.  811 907 

V.  State,  18  Ind.  56   1148 

V.  State,  5  Okla.  Crim.  513, 
115  Pac.  632  ....  1095, 

1102,  1112 
V.  Sweetser,  14  Ind.  292   .  .    1090 
Dodds  v.  Dodds,  9  Pa.  St.  315,  . 

385.     387 
V.  Gregson,    35   Wash.    402, 

77  Pac.  791  964 

Dodge  v.  Janvrin,  50  X.  H.  10.  .      TOO 
V.  Prince.  4  Vt.  191    505 


XCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  a; 

Dodge  V.  Schell,  20  Blatchf.  517, 
12  Fed.  515.  10  Abb.  N. 

Cas.  (N.  Y.)  465  

253,  256,  982,  1046, 

1049.  1051 
V.  State.  140  Ind.  284,  39 

N.  E.  745 12 

V.  Tullevs,  144  U.  S.  457.  12 
S.  Ct.  728,  36  U.  8.  (L. 

ed.)  501 774 

Dodson  V.  Riddle,  1  Oliio  Dec. 
(Reprint)    54,   1  Cine.  ]..   Bill. 

393 254.     973 

Doe  V.  Abbott.  152  Ala.  243.  44 
So.    637,    126    Am.    St. 

Rep.   30    415,  430, 

431,  435,     438 
V.  Andrews,  2  Cowp.  (Eng. ) 

846   220 

V.  Bird.  7  C.  &  P.  6,  32  E.  C. 

L.  415    350 

V.  Brown,   8   Blackf.    (Ind.) 

443    416,     585 

V.  Dobson.  7  N.  Bruns.  531  537 
V.  Evton.  3  B.  &  Ad.  785,  23 

E.  C.  L.  185 442 

V.  Roe,  37  Ga.  289  217 

V.  Roe,  8  Dowl.  (Enjj.)  340  130 
V.  Seaton,  2  Ad.  &  El.  171, 

29  E.  C.  L.  62 185 

Dohcnv  V.  Lacv,  168  N.  Y.  213, 
61  X.  E.  255,  affirmin£r  42 
App.    Div.    218,   59    N.    Y.    S. 

724   184 

Doherty  v.  O'Callafrhan,  157 
Mass".  90,  31  N.  E.  726,  34  Am. 
St.   Rep.   258,    17   L.R.A.    188 

159.  209,  210,     213 
Dolan  V.  Van  Domark,  35   Kan. 

304.  10   I'ae.  848   .  .    364,  390,     394 
Doles  V.  Hilton,  48  Ark.  305,  3  S. 

W.  193  36 

Dollar  V.  Nortliwestern  Imp.  Co., 

72  Wash.  1,  12!)  Pac.  578 344 

Dollard    v.    Koronskv,    64    Misc. 

611,  118  N.  Y.  S.  922 851 

Dolliver  v.  American  Swan  T'>oat 
Co.,  32  Misc.  264,  65  N.  Y.  S. 

978 996.  1078.  1082 

Dominfjncz  v.  Citizen's  T.aiik  it 
Trust  Co.,  62  Fla.  148.  56  So. 

682   207 

Dominici.    Re,    151    Cai.    181,   90 

Pac.  448 210 

Dominion  Salva;,'e  &  \\'r('(kinj,' 
Co.  V.  Atty-Ccn.,  21  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  72  ..■ li:;3 


•e  to  pages.] 

Domni    V.    Hollenbeck.    142    111. 

App.  439   333 

Donaluie  v.  Bragg,  49  Mo.  App. 

273   606 

V.  Chicago  Cricket  Clnb,  177 

111.   351.   52   N.   E.   351     285 
V.  Faekler,   21   W.   Va.    124 

364.  503,     506 
Donaldson,  Re.  27  Ch.  D.   (Eng.) 
544.  54  L.  J.  Ch.  151,  51  L.  T. 

N.   S.  622    861 

V.  Allen.  213  Mo.  293,  111 
S.  W.  1128,  127  Am.  St. 

Rep.  601  849 

V.  Eaton.  136  la.  650,  114  N. 
W.  19.  125  Am.  St.  Rep. 
275.  14  L.R.A.  (N.S.) 

1168 272,  273, 

654.  741.  742.  743.  745. 
750,  758,  761,  919.  948,     949 
V.  Ilaldane,     7     CI.     &     F. 

(Eng.)    762   559 

Donlev  v.   Cundiff.  35  Tex.  741     365- 
Donoliue.  Re,  2  Hask.  17,  7  Fed. 
Cas.  Xd.  3.990    .  .    170, 

205,     217 
V.  IIiUTzerford.  1   App.  Div. 
528,  37  N.  Y.  S.  628  .  . 

428.     444 
V.  ^Vatson.  72  Misc.  56.  128 

N.  Y.  S.  1089   346 

Donovan  v.  Miller.  12  Idaho  600, 
10  Ann.  Cas.  444,  88  Pac.  82.  9 

L.R.A. (N.S.)   524   561 

Dooley  v.  Doolev.  9  Lea  (Tenn.) 

306   *......    249,  251,     352 

Doolittle  V.  Gookin,  10  Vt.   265 

427,     428 
Doon  V.  Donaher.  113  Mass.  151 

380,     407 
Door  V.  Camden,  55  W.  Va.  22t). 
40      S.      E.      1014,      G5 

L.R.A.   348    729 

V.  Dndlev,    135    la.   20,    112 

X.   W.   203    002 

Doran  v.  (Jreat  Western  R.  Co., 

14   U.   C.   Q.   B.   403    353,     .350 

Dorland,    Re,    G3    Cal.   281     041 

V.  Smith,    03    Cal.    120,    28 

Pac.   812    20G 

Dorley  v.   Roberts,   3   Bing.  X. 
Cas".   835,  32   E.   C.   L.   340,   5 
Scott  40.  3  Hodges  154  (i  L.  J. 

C.  PI.  270    141 

Dorlon    V.    Lewis,    7     How.     I'r. 

(N.    Y.)     132    205. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XCVll 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Dorman  v.  Arkin,  120  N.  Y.  S. 

757    .'581,  407,     408 

Dormenon,    Ke,   2    Wliecl.   Crim. 

(N.  Y.)    344   r20() 

Dormenon's    Case.    1    Mart.    O. 

(La.)     129    .. 12(il 

Dorn  V.  Rosa.  177  111.  225.  .52  N. 
E.  321,  aflirming  77  111.  Ai)p. 

223    91!) 

Dorr  V.  Camden,  55  W.  Va.  220, 
46  S.  E.  10!4,  05 
L.R.A.  348    ..738,  742, 

743,  782,   786,     !)52 
V.  Dudley,   135   la.  20,   112 
N.  W.  203    .  .711,   712, 

780.     900 
Dorr  Cattle  Co.  v.  Des  Moines 
Nat.    Bank,    127    la.    153,    4 
Ann.  Cas.  519,  98  N.  W.  918 

637,  641,     643 

Dorrance   v.   IMcAlester,    1    Ind. 

Ter.  473,  45  S.  W.  141    ..267, 

Dorsey,  Re,  7   Port    (Ala.)    293 

16,  82, 

V.  Corn,    2    111.    App.    533 


477 

96 

941 


349 


907 


V.  Gassawav,   2    Har.   &   J. 
(Md.)    402,  3  Am.  Dec. 

557      

V.  G  o  o  d  e  n  o  w,       Wright 

(Ohio)   120  ..889,  893, 

906, 

V.  His    Creditors,    5    Mart. 
N.  S.   (La.)   399   ..924, 

925,   933,     934 
V.  Kyle,    30    Md.    512,    96 

Am.    Dec.    617 416 

V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
143  Mo.  App.  428,  128 

S.  W.   17    

V.  WolfT,  142  111.  589,  32  N. 

W.  495,  34  Am.  St.  Rep. 

99.    18   L.R.A.   428    . . . 

Doster   v.    Scullv,    27    Fed.    782 

279, 

Dothard   v.    Sheid.   69    Ala.   135 

Doub  V.   Barnes,   4   Gill    (Md.) 

1     354,    384. 

V.  Barnes,    1    INId.    Ch.    127 
Doublcdav    v.    Kress,    50    N.    Y. 

410     

V.  Sherman,   8   Blatclif.   45, 

7    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    4020 

Doughertv  v.  Andrews,   19   Tnd. 

406      

V.  Snvder.  15  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
84,   16  Am.  Dec.  520.. 


837 


778 

.305 
858 

396 
409 

306 

S51 

422 

334 


Doughty  V.  Paige,  48  Ta.  483..      543 
Douglas   V.    Corry,   46    Oiiio   St. 
349,  21  N.  E.  440,  15  Am.  St. 

Rep.    604 605 

Douglass   V.   Downeiid.    30   Oliio 

Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  649  ..797,     911 

V.  Eason,  36  Ala.  687    948 

V.  Folsoni,  21  Xcv.  441,  33 

Pae.   660    14 

V.  Mitchell,  35  Pa.  St.  440     341 
V.  ]Miirrav,  26  N.  Y.  Wkly. 

Dig.  "339    603 

V.  Provvell,     130    Ala.    5S0, 

30  So.  498    1121 

V.  State,    6    Yerg.     (Tenn.) 

525,    1099,  1112 

Douse  V.  Coxe,  3  Ring  20,  11  E. 

C.  L.  12    48S 

Dover    v.    Harrell,    58    Ga.    572 

198.     199- 

Dow  V.  Evster,  79  111.  254 906 

Dowd  V.  Troup,  57  Miss.  204..      8,32 
Dowell      V.      Dowell.      3      Head 

(Tenn.)     502     328.     685 

V.  Talbot    Paving    Co.,    138 

Ind.   675    472 

Dowling  V.  Eggemann,  47  Mich. 

171.  10  N.  W.  187   83S,  1037 

Downard    v.    Hadley,    116    Ind. 
131,  18  N.  E.  457   ..299,  300, 

.305,     515 
Downer  v.  Porter,  116  Ky.  422, 
70  S.  W.  135,  25  Kv.  L.  Rep. 

571    \ 270 

Downey   v.   Garard,   24   Pa.    St. 

52    588,   594,   604,     60-5 

V.  Gerrard.    3    Grant    Cas. 

(Pa.)    64    .  .  .296,    302,     303 
V.  Owen.  98  App.  Div.  411, 

90  N.   Y.  280    155 

Downing,   Re,   118  Wis.  581,   95 

N.    W.    876    158.     210 

V.  Major,  2  Dana  (Kv.)  228 

273,    278,    741.    780,     783 
V.  State,  61  Tex.  Crim.  519. 

136   S.  W.  471    198 

V.  Stone,  152  N.  C.  525,  21 
Ann.  Cas.  753,  68  S. 
E.  9,  136  Am.  St.  Rep. 

841  634 

Downs   V.  Allen,   22   Fed.    ..805     236 
V.  Davis.    113    la.    529.    85 

N.  W.   781    .  .608.   009,     614 
Dowse    v.    Coxe,    3    Rinij   20,    11 

E.  C.  L.  12   490' 


:xcviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


107' 


[m 


Doyle,  Re,  138  App.  Div.  99, 
122  N.  Y.  S.   1000 

123!),  1320 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
GG  App.  Div.  398,  72 

N.  Y'.  S.  93G  

Drago   V.    Smith,   92    Hun    530. 

3G    X.    Y.    S.   975    

Drain    v.    Doggett.    41    Ta.    G82 

391,     393 
Drais    v.    Hogan,    50    Cal.    121 

5G6,  5G9,     570 
Drake  v.  Berry,  42  N.  J.  L.  GO     861 
V.  Duvenick,    45     Cal.    455     4G9 
V.  Vickerv,     81     Kan.    519, 

106    Pac.   290    642,     643 

V.  Webb,  63   Ala.  596    851 

Draper  v.  Draper,  29  Mo.  13..      849 
Drapers    Co.    v.    Davis,    2    Atk. 

(Eng.)    295    

Drax   V.    Scroope,    2    B.    &    Ad. 
581,  22  E.  C.  L.  145,  1  Dowl. 

69    

Dreiband  v.  Candler,  166  Mich. 

49.  131  N.  W.  129 739. 

Dreifiis     v.     Colonial     Bank     & 

Trust    Co..    127    La.    1086.    54 

50.  358     895,    899. 

Dresser  v.   Wood,   15   Kan.   344 

375,    376. 
Dreyfuss  v.  Jones,  116  111.  Apj). 

75     675, 

Driggs  V.  Van  Loon.  1  Col.  Cas. 

(N.  Y.)   51,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  56 

Droege,   Re,    197    N.   Y.   44,   50, 

51.  90  X.  E.  340    

Drurv  v.  Butler,  171  Mass.  171. 

50   X.  E.   527    563, 

V.  Russell.     27     How.     Pr. 

(X.   Y.)    130    

Du    r.arre  v.  Livette,  Peake  N. 

P.    (ed.   1795)    78    172 

Du  Bois  V.  Clark,  12  Colo.  App. 

220,  55  Pac.  750  ..439, 

V.  Xew  York,  134  Fed.  570, 

69  C.  C.  A.  112    ..237. 

254.   261,    796. 

Dubois's     Appeal.     38     Pa.     St. 

231,  80   Am.    Dec.   878    .  .971, 

973.  977,  1006.  1016.  1022.  1035 

Dublin,  rfc,  R.  Co.  V.  .\ckerni;n), 

2  (;;i.  App.  74(i,  59  S.  K.  ]*) 

701.    !ti;;.      921 
Diii'cit,    V.    (  iinniiiLibinti.    3!)    Me. 

:!S(; :;i;:', 

DiU'ker   V.    ItiipM.    67    N.    \.    Kit 
rcvcrsin;.'    41     Su]jcr.    (1.    23r) 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Duckwall  V.  Jones,  156  Ind.  682, 
58   X.   E.    1055,    10   X. 

E.    797     

V.  Williams,    29    Ind.    App. 

650,    63    X.    E.    232    .  . 

Diukwortli     V.     Duckworth,     35 

Ala.   70    

Dudley,  Re,  12  Q.  B.  D.    (Eng.) 

44      

V.  Beck,  3  Wis.  274    .  .155, 

190,    214, 

V.  Owen,      31      App.      Cas. 

(D.   C.)    177    

V.  Sanders    Mfg.    Co.,    114 

Fed.    981    881, 

Duff  V.  Combs,  132  Ky.  710,  117 

S.    W.    259    

V.  Duff,    71     Cal.    513,     12 

Pac.    570    352, 

Duffin    V.    Sraitii,    Peake   X.    P. 

(ed.    1795    Eng.)     108    

Duffy  &  Hansom,  16  L.  T.  X.  S. 

332      

V.  Scheerger,    91    Xeb.    511, 

136   X.   W.   724    ..632, 

Dulu>"s  Succession,  41  La.  Ann. 

209,   6   So.   502    

Duke  V.  Harper,  2  Mo.  App.   1, 

affirmed  66  JNIo.  51,  27 

Am     Rep.     314     ..661, 

669, 

V.  Harper,  8  Mo.  App.  2n6 

731,  792,  793,  807,  808. 

V.  State.    56    Ark.    485,    20 

S.  W.  600    1161. 

Dukes    V.    Davis,    125    Ky.    313, 

101    S.   W.   390    

V.  State.    11     Ind.    557,    71 

Am.    Dec.    370    

Dulon  V.  Camp,  28  Misc.  548,  59 

N.  Y.  S.  508    

Dumartrait   v.   Kemper,   28   La. 

Aiui.    (;20     

Dumas    v.    Smith,    17    Ala.    305 
Dumowitli  v.  Marks,  84  X.  Y.  S. 

453     106S, 

Duncan,   He,  64  S.  V.  461,  42  S. 
E.     433     ..1160,     1176, 


611 

556 
981 

904 
439 
760 
468 
1.325 
590 
468 


443 


806 


164 


4S1 


1225,  1285. 
Re,  SI  S.  C.  290,  62  S.  E. 

406   

Pve,  83  S.  C.  18(i,  IS  .Ann. 

Cas.  657,  65  S.  K.   210 

24   I..K.A.I  X.Si   T-.o 

13,  105.  106, 

Re,  10  .lur.  X.  S.  (Kiig.) 

9,")!)  


854 
889 
561 
621 
219 
710 
917 
416 
455 
219 
403 
643 
773 

750 

809 
1162 

219 
1100 

710 

367 
6()7 

107!) 

1304 
1239 

1175 
63 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


XCIX 


[References 

Duncan  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  K.  Co., 
72  Fed.  SOS,  44  IJ.  S^ 
App.  427,   I'J   C.   C.  A. 

20-.^    53G 

V.  Bieitliaupt,  1  McCord  L. 

(S.   C.)    149    702,     783 

V.  Duncan,   63   la.    150,    18 

N.  W.  858    848 

Dundas   v.   Dutens,   2   Co.\.   Cli. 

23U,    1    Rev.    Rep.    112     538 
V.  Wilson,  19  Ont.  W.  Rep. 

17,   2   Ont.    W.   X.   995     632 
Dundonald  v.  Wasterman,  L.  R. 
7   Eq.  504,  38   L.  J.  Cli.  350, 

17    VV.    R.    548     520 

Dunham  v.  Rently,  103  la.  136, 

72  X.  W.  437    728,  954,     955 

Dunlvin      v.      Vandenbergh,       1 

Paige  (Eng.)  626  ..985,  1054,  1056 
Dunlap  V.  Burnham,  38  Me.  1]2  1033 
V.  Byers,  110  Mich.  109,  67 

N.    W.    1067     4]6 

V.  Edwards,  29  Miss.  41..   328 
V.  Fox,  (Miss.)  2  So.  169  858 
V.  Lcbus,  112  Ky.  237,  65 
S.  W.  441,  23  Kv.  L. 

Rep.    1481     '.  .27,     109 

V.  Standard     Consol.     Min. 

Co.,  61  Cal.  237    ..701,     894 
V.  Wilson,    32    111.    53  7    ...      268 
Dunlop   V.   Com.,   2   Call    (Va.) 

284     151,     152 

Dunman    v.    Hartwell,    9    Tex. 

495,  60  Am.  Dec.   176    494 

Dunn,  Ex  p.  8  S.  C.  207    1159 

Re,  85  Neb.  606,  124  X.  W. 

120      1200 

Re,  43  X.  J.  L.  359,  39  Am. 

Rep.     600     62,       63 

Re,    205    X.    Y.    398.    98    X. 

E.  914    239,  272,   1005 

Re,  27  App.  Div.  37 J.  50  X. 

Y.   S.   163    1307 

V.  Amos.  14  Wis.  TOO  .  .186,     214 
V.  Berksliire,    17a    111.    243, 

51   X.  E.  770    848 

V.  Dunn,  42  X.  J.  E(i.  443, 
7  Atl.  842    ..273,  281, 

284,  285 
V.  Hansard,  37  Mo.  199  .  .  562 
V.  Xewman,  7  How.  /Miss.) 

582      534 

V.  O'Reillv,  11   U.  C.  C.  P. 

404    ' 322 

V.  Paokwood.         11         Jur. 

( Eng. )     242    329 


are  to  pages.] 

Runn  V.  Record,  63  Me.  17  .  .273 

281,   282,     284 
V.  Southern    Ins.    Co.,    J 16 

La.    431    40    So.    786.  .      533 
V.  Springnieier,  7  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)    339,  2  Cine. 

L.  Bui.  127    376,     378 

V.  Stone  Co.,   11   W.  X.   C. 

(Pa.)    95   437 

V.  Vannerson,        7        How. 
(Miss.)       579,       ..575, 

603,  608,   619,     990 
Dunn's  Application,  43  X.  J.  L. 

359,  39  Am.  liep.  600    Gl 

Dunne   v.  Herrick.  37   111.  App. 

180    594,  662,   664,     728 

Dunning    v.    Gallowav,    47    Ind. 

182      ": 1083 

Dunovant   v.    Stafford,    36   Tex. 

Civ.  App.   33,  81    S.  W.   101        778 
Dunsmuir  v.  Klondike,  etc.,  Gold 
Fields,     6     British     Columbia 

200    132 

Du    Pont    V.    Chicago    Sanitarv 
Dist.,  203   111.   170,   67   X.   E. 

815      480 

Dupre    V.    Splane,     16    La.    51 

384,  393,     400 
Duquette   v.    Richar,    102   Mich. 

483,   60   X.   W.   974    362 

Duran   Mercantile   Co.,   Re,    199 

Fed.   961    818 

Durand  v.  Landry,  120  La.  513, 

45  So.  409    882.     921 

Durant,  Re,  80  Conn.  140,  10 
Ann.  Cas.  539,  67  Atl. 
497  ..15,  22,  1165, 
1166,  1168,  117],  1172, 
1173,  1186,  1212,  1232, 
1245,  1280,  1281,  1287, 
1296,  1302,  1305,  1310, 

1325,  1326,  1327 
V.  Washington     County, 
Woohv.  377,  8  Fed. 

Cas.  Xo.  4,191  851 

Durfee  v.  Abbott,  50  Mich.  278, 

15  X.  W.  454    449.     451 

Durkee  v.  Gunn,  41  Kan.  496, 
21  Pac.  637,  13  Am.  St. 

Rep.  300  793 

V.  Leland,    4    Vt.    612    198 

Durnford  v.   Clark.   3   La.   199        494 
V.  Scghers,    9    Mart.    O.    S. 

(La.)    470    611 

Durr  V.   State,  53  Miss.  425    ..    1116 
Dnrrett  v.  Durrett,   (Ky.)   89  S. 

W.    210    416 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Roforeuces 

Duttenhofer   v.    State,    34    Uliio 

St.  91,  32  Am.  Kep.  3152    220 

Button  V.   Mason,  21   Tex.   Civ. 

App.  380,  52  S.  W.  tJ51    1030 

Duval  V.  Busch,  21  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)   214,  13  N.  Y.  St.  Kep 

752    472 

Duvall  V.  VVaggener,  2  B.  j\Ion. 

(Ky.)     183    296 

Duvster  v.    Crawford,   69   N.   J. 

L.  229,  54  Atl.  823    110 

Dwight    V.    Simon,    4    La.    Ann. 

490    520,     608 

V.  Weir,  6  La.  Ann.  700   .  .        11 
Dwinnell    v.    Badger,    74    Minn. 

405,  7  N.  W.  219    845 

Dwver   v.   Ells,   208   Mass.    195, 
21   Ann.  Cas.   1042,  94 

N.   E.   286    860 

V.  Hurley,    109    Minn.   415, 

124   N.   W.  4    781,     921 

Dyer    v.    !MeWhirter,    51     Tex. 
Civ.    App.    200    111    S. 

W.    1053    155 

V.  Smitii,   12  Conn.  384    .  .      336 
V.  Sutherland.    75    111.    583 

323,    747,   767,     768 
Dvrenfortli  v.  Palmer,  etc.,  Co., 
*240    111.    25,    88    N.    E.    290 

723,  740,  741,     742 
Dvsart,  St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  H.  R. 
"Co.,    (Tex.)    130    S.   W.   1047  1047 

E, 


E.,  Re,  65  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 

171  1268,  1276,  1330, 

Eager  v.  Stover,  59  Mo.  87  .  . 

Eagle  Lake  First  Nat.  Bank  v. 

Robinson,  104  Tex.  106,  135 

S.  W.  372  

Eagleton  Mfg.  Co.  v.  West,  etc., 

Mfg.  Co.,   2   Fed.  744    

Eakin     v.     Peeples     Hotel     Co., 

(Tenn.)    54   S.    W.   87    ..782 

784,  787. 

Kuirr  V.  McAllister,  19  La.  Ann. 

21      

Earbart  v.  U.  S.  30  Ct.  CI.  343 

Earle     v.     Grout,     46     Vt.     113 

165,  176,  188.  191, 

v.   Hopwodd.     9     ('.     B.     N. 

S.  566,  99  E.  C.  L.  566. 

30   L.  J.   C.   PI.  217,   7 

.Fur.  \.  S.  775.  3  L.  T. 

N.  S.  670,  9  \V.  I!.  272 

670, 


1337 
446 


778 
244 

828 

881 
482 


730 


are  to  pages.] 

Earley    v.    Whitney,    100    App. 

IJiv.  399,  94  N.   i'.  S.  728    .  .      8G0 
Earn-  v.  Com.  86  Va.  921,  US. 

E.'795  145 

Easthani,  Ex  p.  40  Ore.  475.  80 

Pac.  1057  1187,  1307 

East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
71  Tex.  703,  10  S.  \V. 
298,  10  Am.  St.  Rep. 

804  404 

V.  Scott,  72  Tex.  70,  10  S. 
W.  99,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
758,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 

Cas.  16  401,  407,  408 

Eastman  v.  Coos  Bank,  1  N. 

H.  23  463  543 

V.  Keasor,  44  N.  H.  518   . .      637 
Easton  v.  Smith,  1  E.  D.  Smith 

(N.   Y.)    318    729,   781,     955 

Easton  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Greenwich 

Tp.  25  N.  J.  Eq.  565    417 

East  River  Bank  v.  Kennedy,  9 

Bosw.    (N.  Y.)    544,    409,  1002 

East  St.  Louis  v.  Freels,  17  111. 

App.    339    25 

Eaton,  Re,  4  N.  D.  514,   62  N. 

W.   597    1171 

Re,  7  X.  D.  269,  74  N.  W. 

870     1321 

v.  Knowles.    61    Midi.    625, 

28  X.  W.  740 384,     408 

v.  Pennvwit.  25  Ark.  144  446 
E.  B.  V.  E.  C.  B.  8  Abb.  Pr.  44, 

28  Barb.  299  151 

Ebbe,  Re.  150  X.  C.  44,  17  Ann. 
Cas.  592,  63  S.  E.  190,  19 
L.R.A.(X.S.)  892  ..1169, 
1170,  1180,  1268,  1271,  1272, 

1273,  1282,  1285,  1299,  1311 
Ebel  V.  Stringer,  73  Xeb.  249, 

102  X.  W.  466  417 

Eberhardt  v.  Ilarkless,  115  Fed. 

816    552,  554,     584 

V.  Scluister,  10  Abb.  X.  Cas. 

(X.  V.)    374 1048,  1049 

Ebersole  v.  Rankin,  102  Mo.  488, 

15  S.  W.  422    203 

Eccles  V.  Steplienson,  3  Bibb. 
(Kv.)    517    .  .    549,   570,   583, 

584,     594 
Eckert  v.  Bauert,  4  Wasli.  370, 

8   Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  4.2(>()    469 

Eekler,  Re,  126  Apj).  Div.  199, 
110  X.  Y.  S.  650,  reversing  47 
Misc.    320.    95    X.    V.    S.    980 

181.     206 
Eckrote  v.   Mvers.  41    la.  324    ..      300 


TABI.K    OF    CASKS. 


CI 


[Reft'reiici's 

Ector  V.  Wiggins,  30  Tex.  no.  .  .     90;? 
Eddio  V.  Eddie,  138  Mo.  .lO!),  3!) 

S.    W.    451    849 

Eddinger     v.     Adams,     4     Kulp 

(Pa.)   401   973 

Edelin  v.  Richardson,  4  La.  Ann. 

502 934 

Edcns  Co.,  Re,  151  Fed.  940,  18 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  643  823 

Edge  V.  Com.,  139  Ky.  252,  129 

S.  W.  591  1205 

Edgecombe  Road,  Re,  128  App. 
Div.  432,  112  N.  Y.  S.  845 

739,  705 
Edgerton  v.  Brackett,  11  X.  II. 

218  455 

Edison  Electric  Liglit  Co.  v.  U. 
S.    Electric    Lighting    Co.,    44 

Fed.  294    198,   199,     208 

Edmonds  v.  State,  43  Neb.  742, 

62  X.  W.  199   711),     814 

Edmonson     v.     Davis,     4     Esp. 

(Eng.)    14   107 

Edward  Nev  Co.,  Re,  114  App. 
Div.  407,  99  N.  Y.  S.  982 
610,  614,  615,  619,  980,  1035, 

1037,  1066,  106!),  1087 
Edwards,  Ex  p.  7  Q.  B.  D. 

(Eng.)  155  570 

V.  Bav   State  Gas   Co.,    172 

Fed.  971    700,     842 

v.  Edwards,     29     La.     Ann. 

597    494 

v.  Gohlsmith,  16  Pa.  St.  43     329 
v.  Gottsclialk,  25  Mo.  App. 

549    296,  300,     303 

V.  Grand,    121    Cal.   254,  53 

Pac.   796    774 

V.  Hillier,  70  Misc.  803,  13 

So.   692    267 

V.  Mevrick,    2    Hare    60,    6 

j'ur.   924    283 

V.  Moore,  99  N.  C.  1,  5  S. 

E.  13    466 

V.  Tu.ner  (Tenn.)  47  S.  W. 

144    496 

Eekhout  v.  Cole,  135  N.  C.  583, 

47   S.  E.  655    193 

Egan,  Re,  22  S.  D.  355,  117 
X.  W.  874  .  .  274,  514, 
1169,  1170,  1172,  1215, 

1309.  1321 
Re,  24  S.  D.  301,  123  X.  \V. 
478  ..  31.  1173,  1197, 

1198,  1203.  1334,  1339 
Re,  27  S.  D.  16,  129  X.  W. 

365 1314,  1338 


are  to  pages.] 

Kgaii  V.  Charles  County  Ct.,  3 

Har.  &  M.  (Md.)  169   96 
V.  De  Jonge,  113  X.  Y.  S. 

737  893 

V.  Rooncy,  38  How.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  121  258 

Edgerton  V.  Logan,  81  N.  C.  172  605 

Eggan  V.  Briggs,  23  Kan.  710.  .   359 

Eggleston  v.  Bourdinan,  37  Mich. 

^14    ..    325,  371,  548,  566,  701, 

706,    710,    781,    786,    787.    789, 

790,    831,    873.   877,   914,   915, 

921.  924,  926.  928,  930,     932 
Eginton  v.  Rusk,  3  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

689    \  ..    1021),  1027 

Egolf  Building  &  Loan  Assoc  v. 
Cleaver,    228    Pa.    St.    00,    77 

Atl.  245   312 

Elile  v.  Ilaller,  6  Bosw.   (X.  Y.) 

661    474 

Eickman  y.  Troll,  29  Minn.  124, 

12  X.  W.   347    216,   233, 

434.     456 
Eidam    v.    Finnegan.    48    ?ilinn. 
53,   50   X.   ^Y.   933.   16   L.R.A. 

507    483,     484 

Eihlert  y.  Gommoll,  23  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.   Rep.   586    633 

Eisner    y.    Hamel,    6    Hun     (X. 

Y.)   234 '. 542,     543 

Elam  v.  Bond,  169  Mo.  App.  584  1013 
v.  Johnson,  48  Ga.  348  .  . 

713,  714 

V.  Lewis,   19   Ga.   60S    116 

y.  State,  75  Ind.  518.  .1002.  1096 
Elastic  Tip  Co.  y.  Grahaui,  185 

Mass.  597,  71  X.  E.  117    312 

Elborough  v.  Ayres,  L.  R.  10  Eq. 

(Eng.)   367    ." 684 

Elder    v.    Bogardus,    Hill    &    D. 
Supp.    (X.  Y.)    116    .  . 

583,     591 

y.  Whitehead,  25  Ga.  262 .  .      461 

Eldridge,  Re,  82  N.  Y'.   161,  37 

Am.    Rep.    558     ..1229, 

1232,  1233,  1237,  1290, 

1295,  1301,  1302.  1303, 

1310,  1311,  1325 
V.  State,  126  Ala.  63,  28  So. 

580 224.  225 

V.  The  Ashley,  2  X.  Y.  Leg. 
Obs.  68,  8  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 

4,333  1075 

Eley  y.  IMiller,  7  Ind.  App.  529, 

34  X.  E.  836 106 

Elgin,    etc..    R.    Co.   y.   Fletcher, 
128  III.  619,  21  X.  E.  577    ..      479 


Cll 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[IlL'fcrciicos 

Eliason  v.  Sidle,   01    :\Iiiiii.   2S.-), 

03  X.  W.  7;J0   774 

Eliot      V.      Lawton,      7       Allen 
(Mass.)    274.  8.3  Am.  Dee.  0S.3 

242,  243,  SnO.  0.58,     959 

Elizabeth  City  Lumber  Co.,  -T.  L. 

Pvoper  Lumber  Co.^  ]37  X.  C. 

431,  49   S.   E.  940.  modifying 

135  N.  C.  744.  47  S.  E.  757   .  .      477 

Ellerd  v.  Randolph,    (Tex.)    138 

S.  W.  1171    950 

Ellguth  V.  Ellguth,  250  111.  214, 

95  X".  E.  ]09  849 

Elliots  Succession,  28  La.  Ann. 

]83    759 

Elliott,  Re,  73  Kan.  151,  84  Pac. 
750  .  .  193,  194,  208, 

1299,  1300 
Re,  18  S.  D.  204,  100  N.  W. 
431  .  .  1206,  1209,  1211, 

1261,  1265,  1298 
V.  Atkins,  26  Xeb.  403,  42 

X.  W.  403  999 

V.  Elliott,  3  X"eb.  (Un- 
official) Rep.  832,  92  X^. 
W.   :000    ...    175,  187, 

]93,     206 
V.  Jackson  County,  194  Mo. 

532,  92  S.  W"^,  480 1097 

V.  Leopard  Min.  Co.,  52  Cal. 

355    1002 

V.  Louisyille,    101   Ky.   262, 

40  S.  W.  090   .  .■ 98 

V.  McClelland,    17   Ala.   200     700 
V.  U.   S.  23   App.   Cas.   450 
154,  161,  162,  166,  190, 

198.  205,     209 
V.  Rubel,  132  111.  9,  23  X.  E. 
400,    reversing    30    111. 

App.  62    811,     964 

v.  Tyler,    (Pa.)    6   Atl.  917 

294,     296 
Ellis   V.   Allen,   99   Wis.  598.   74 
X.    W.    .-)37,    75    X.    W. 

949    297 

V.  Ririgham        County,        7 

Idaho  SO,  00   i'ae.  79.  .       110 
V.   Henry,    5    .1.    .(.    Marsh. 

(  Ky.)    247    -  .597,  599.     (U)! 
V.  Jlept'install,     8     \V.     Va. 

388    364,  371,     373 

V.  King,  5  Madd.  (Eng.)  21      537 
V.  Messervic,    11    Paige    (X. 

Y.)    467    283,     280 

V.  Smith.  1  12  (in.  4H0.  37  S. 

E.  739 053,  602,     085 


are  to  pages.] 

Ellis  V.  State,  92  Tenn.  85.  20  S. 

\V.  500 176 

y.   ^^■al•^eld.    H2    la.   059,   4S 

X.  W.  1058   955 

V.  \\'hite,  61   Iowa,  044,  17 

X.  W.  28   416 

V.  Woodl)urn,   24   Pac.   893, 
affirmed  89  Cal.  129.  26 

Pac.  903    881,     900 

Ellsworth  y.  Campbell,  31  Barb. 

(X.   Y.)    134    445,     518 

Elmore  y.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  X.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep. 
401,  21  L.R.A.  300  .  .  273,  278, 
282,   283,   287,   292,   300,   740, 

742,  748,  749.     750 
El  Reno  Gas  etc.,  Co.  y.   Spur- 
geon,    30    Okla.    88,    118    Pac. 
397     .  .     033,    035,    637,    040, 

643,  648,     649 
Elser    y.    Gross   Point,    223    111. 
230,   79   X.   E.   27,    114 

Am.  St.  Rep.  326    685 

V.  Heinzer,  37  111.  App.  298     848 
Elting   V.    Scott,    2    Johns.     (X. 

Y.)    157    349 

Elton  y.  Larkins.  5  C.  &  P.  385, 
24  E.  C.  L.  372,  1  M.  &  Rob. 

196    347,  349,     350 

Elwell  V.  Prescott,  38  Wis.  274 

367,     475 
V.  Seattle  Scandinavian 

Fish  Co.,  2  Alaska  017     859 
Elvvood   V.   Lannon,  27   Md.  200     348 
v.  Wilson,  21  Iowa,  523    .  . 
755,  793,  804,  805,  808, 

888,  104O 
Elworthy     v.     Bird,     1     Tanilvn 

(Eng.)    43    '..      489 

Ely    V.    Cook,    2    Hilt.    (X.    Y.) 

406,  9  Abb.  Pr.  306  .  .  1056 
V.  Cooke,  28  X.  Y.  305  .  .  861 
V.  Harvey,    6    Bush     (Ky.) 

020  *. 362.     364 

v.  Lamb,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  209 

385,  397,  409,  497,  498,  499 
V.  Peet,    52    X.   J.    Eq.    734. 

29  Atl.  817    860 

Emanuel  y.  Cooper,  153  la.  572, 
133   X.   W.    I()(i4    .  .    250,   610, 

015,  010,  617,     019 
iMnlilem     V.     Bicksler,    34    Colo. 
490,   83    I'ae.   030    .  .    371,   709. 

712.     899 
Emeric  v.  Alvarado,  90  Cal.  444, 
27  Pac.  356 91» 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cm 


[Rof^TOIlCCS 

Emerson  v.  Cocliran.  Ill  Pa.  St. 

G19,  4  Atl.  4!).S    (j;{tJ 

V.  McDoniU'll,    12!t   Wis.  (i7, 

107  X.  W.  10;i7  .  .  (177,  GS7 
V.  Scott,  ?,9   Tex.  Civ.  App. 

Go,  87  S.  W.  -MV.)    211 

V.  State,  54  Tex.  Crim.  028, 
114  S.  W.  834   . .    1105, 

]15!J,  1103 
Eiiinia  Silver  ilin.  Co.  v.  Emma 

Silver   Min.   Co.,    12   Fed.   815  1039 
Emmet,  Re,  cited  in  tiood\vi«e  v. 
Hacker,    2    Cai.    (N.    Y.)    38G 

10,       38 
Emmet's   Case,   2   Cai.    (X.   Y.) 

387    115 

Enislie  v.  Ford  Plate  (ilass  Co., 
25  Oliio  Cir.  Ct.  Pvcp.  548    .  . 

G70,  672,     755 
Engebretsen    v.    Gav.    158    Cai. 
.30,  Ann.  Cas.  1912 A  GOO,  109 
Pac.     880,     28     L.R.A.(X.S.) 

10G2   852,     850 

Engelbach   v.    Simpson,    12   Tex. 

Civ.  App.  188,  33  S.  W.  596.  .      410 
England   v.   Garner,    90    X"^.    C. 

197    417,     445 

Engle  V.  Shipman.  51  Mich.  524, 
16  X.  W.  880  ..371,  710,  1098, 

1114,  1115 
Englebert    v.    Troxell.    40    Xeb. 
195,  58  X.  W.  852.  42  Am.  St. 

Rep.  G6.5,  20  L.R.A.  177    719 

English  v.  Latham,  3  JNIart.  X. 

S.    (La.)    88    328 

V.  McConncl,    23    111.    513.  . 

710,     911 
V.  Ricks.   117   Tenn.   73,   95 

S.    W.    ISO    173 

V.  Territory,  11  Ariz.  259, 
90  Pac.  601,  affirming 
11  Ariz.  87,  89  Pac. 
501,  afTirming  214  U.  S. 
359.  29  S.  Ct.  058.  53 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  1030  ..  856 
Engresser   v.   Xortliern   Pac.   R. 

Co.,  18  Mont.  31,  44  Pac.  279  1175 
Ennis  v.  Curry,  61  How.  Pr.  ( X. 

Y.)   i 1054,  1055 

V.  Hultz,  46  la.  76 771 

Enright,  Re.  67  Vt.  351.  31  Atl. 

786    1208 

Re,  69  Vt.  317.  37  Atl.  1046  1336 
Enterline     v.     Miller,     27     Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  4G3    548,  549, 

551,  5.53,  554,     508 


are  to  pages.] 

Koir  v.  Irvine.  108  :\ro.  378,  18 
S.  \V.  907,  32  Am.  St.  Rep. 
G(li)    ....    2.34,    293,   296,   299, 

701,     781 
Lpliiaim    V.    Pacific    Rank.     149 
Cai.  222,  86  Pac.  507    .  .    35G, 

375,  370,     485 
Epiterson   v.   X'ugent,    57     Miss. 

45,  34  Am.  Rep.  434 718 

Epstein    v.    Berkow^kv,    64    111. 

App.  498    ' G3(> 

v.  U.  S.  Fidelitv,  etc.,  Co., 
29  Misc.  295,  GO  X.  Y. 
S.  527,  reversing  28 
Mi.sc.  440.   58  X.  Y,   S. 

1135   684,     859 

Equitable  Rldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  v. 
Hoffman.  50  S.   C.  303.  27    S. 

E.  692    774 

Equitable  Securities  Co.  v. 
Green,  113  Ga.  1013,  39  S.  E. 

434    175,     270 

Equitable  Trust  Co.  v.  ]Mac- 
Laire,    77    Misc.    110,    135    X. 

Y.  S.  1022    407.     .'io-l 

Erickson,    Ex   p.,    31    X'.   Bruns. 

29G    494 

V.  McXeeley.  41  Wash.  509, 

84  Pac.   3    408 

V.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
93  Mich.  414.  53  X.  AY. 

393    109 

Erie  Lumber   Co.,   Re,   150   Fed. 

817,   17  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  089     825 
Eriko  v.  Bomford,  1  Havw.  &  H. 
(D.  C.)    201,  8  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 

4,517     425 

Ernst,  Re,  54  App.  Div.  363.  66 

X.   Y.   S.  620    619 

Erskine   v.    Mcllrath,    60    Minn. 

485,  62  X.  W.  1130    451,     454 

Erwin  V.  Blake,  8  Pet.  18,  8  U. 

S.   (L.  ed.)   852 362,  363, 

375,  500,  502,  503,     500 
Eschwege,    Re,     8     Am.     Bankr. 

Rep.   282    817 

Esley  V.  People,  23  Kan.  510   .  .      41G 
Estate  of — see  name  of  partv. 
Estes  v.  Boothe,  20  Ark.  583"  .  . 

299,     304 
Estudillo,      Security,      Loan      & 
Trust  Co.,  v.,  134*^  Cai.  IGG,  06 

Pac.   257    494 

Etheridge  v.  Woodlev,  S3  X".  C. 

11    ". 414 

Etio  v.  Cade,  4  La.  383    419 

Etzel   v.   Duncan,   112  Md.   340, 


CIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

76  Atl.  493    .  .    723,  739,  740, 

74],  742,  745,  747,     704 
Eiineau  v.  Rieijer,   105  Mo.  059, 

10  S.  W.  854    685 

Eureka  Lake,  etc..  Canal  Co.  v. 
Superior  Ct.,  110  U.  S.  410.  0 
S.  Ct.  429.  29   U.   S.    (L.  ed.) 

071    468 

Euthoven  v.  Cobb,  2  DeG.  M.  & 

G.  (Eng.)  632  185 

Evans,  Re,  94  S.  C.  414,  78  S.  E. 
227  ..  1186, 1219, 1220, 
1224,  1260,  1261,  1294, 

1298,  1316,  1319 
Re,  22  Utah  360,  62  Pac. 
913,  83  Am.  St.  Rep. 
794.  53  L.R.A.  952  .  . 

671,  074,  1174,  1253,  1308 
Re,  (Utah)  130  Pac.  217 
053,  071,  1100,  1109, 
1176,  1284,  1309,  1312, 

1332,  1337,  1338,  1339 
Re,  116  Fed.  909,  8  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  730  .  .  819,  822 
V.  Atlantic  Coast  Line  R. 
Co..  105  Va.  72,  53  S. 

E.  3  640,  643 

V,  Bell,  6  Dana  (Ky.)  479 

668,  730,  732,  767 
V.  Ellis,  5  Den.  (N.  Y.) 

040  747 

V.  Funk.  151  111.  650,  38  X. 

E.  230  25,  966 

V.  Harris,  47  Super.  Ct.  (N. 

Y.)  360  13,  120,  128 

V.  Mohr,  153  111.  501.  39  N. 

E.  1083  709,  711, 

888,  899 
V.  Montgomery,  95  Mich. 

497,  55  N.  w.  302 346 

V.  IMulIer,     74     App.     Div. 
630,   77   X.   Y.  S.   1027 

1043,   1050 
V.  Schriver  Laundry  Co.,  57 

111.   App.   150    ~ 133 

V.  Smitliwick,  24  (Ja.  461    ..      217 
V.  State,  5  Okla.  Ci'im.  ()I3, 
115  Pac.  809,  34  L.JJ.A. 
(N.S.)     577     ....     15S. 

189,    192,     213 
V.  Watrous,  2  Port.    (Ala.) 

205 .    550,  58-1,     586 

V.  \\'iikin.s()ii,  6   Pol).    (  I>a.) 

172    07!i 

Kviiu'rt    Will.    Ite.    33    .Misc.    5li7. 

08  X.  V.  S.  936    1079 


are  to  pages.] 

Re,  58  App.  Div.  502,  10  X\ 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  32,  69  X. 
Y.  S.  482,  rehearing  de- 
nied 65  App.  Div.  610, 
72  X.  Y.  S.  493. .1050,  1079 
Evars  v.  Kamphaus,  59   Pa.  St. 

379    489,     491 

Everett  v.  C  harlestown,  12  Allen 

(Mass.)    93    489,  490,     491 

v.  Croskrey,   101   la.   17,  69 

X.  W.  1125 848 

V.  Henderson,  146  Mass.  89, 
14  X.  E.  933,  4  Am.  St. 

Rep.  284   . 522,     552 

V.  Jones,    32    Utah    489,    91 

Pac.   360    575,  590,     601 

V.  Marston,     186    Mo.    587, 

85  S.  W.  540   477 

V.  Warner  Bank,  58  X.  H. 

340    444 

Evers  v.  May  field,  120   Ky.   73, 

85  S.  \Y.  697    ■ 103 

Evingdon's  Case,  2  Stra.  (Eng.) 

1130    114 

Ewers  v.  White,  114  Mich.  266, 
72  X.  W.  184,  4  Detroit  Leg. 

X.  573 18i),     189 

Ewing  V.  Freeman,  103  Ga.  811. 

30  S.  E.  637   620 

V.  Parrish,    148    ilo.     App. 

492,  128  S.  W.  538    298 

Exchange  Bank  v.  Tuttle,   5  X. 
M.  427,  23  Pac.  241,  7  L.R.A. 

445    778 

Excise  Com'rs  v.  Purdv,  36  Barb. 

X.  Y.)   266    ." 424 

V.  Purdy,   13   Abb.   Pr.    (X. 

Y.)  434   426,     537 

Ex.  p.,  see  name  of  party. 

Ex.  p.,  2  Dowl.  (Eng.)  110 1268 

Eyre  v.  Stubbert.  71  Misc.  147, 

128  X.  Y.  S.  4 373 

Eysanian  v.  Xelson,  79  Misc.  304, 
"  140  X.  Y.  S.  183,  .  .   726,  745,     966 


F. 


Fabel  V.  Boykin,  55  Ala.  383    .  .      299 
Faggard    v.   Williamson,   4    Tex. 

Civ.   App.   337,   23   S.   W.  557     491 
Fague  V.  Corcoran,  3  Mackev  (D. 

C.)     199 215."  S7S,     910 

I'ail   V.    i'rcsslcy.  50  Ala.  342    ..      466 
l''airlianks  v.  Devereau.x,   58   \'t. 

359,  3  Atl.  500   1056 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cv 


[References 

Fairbanks  v.  Sarcent.  104  X.  Y. 
li'S.  !)  X.'  K.  870.  08  Am. 
Ke]).    490    .  .    734,    735, 

1036,  1052 
V.  Stanley.  18  Me.  296.  .452,  532 
V.  Townsend,  8  Mass.  450  .  . 

541,     542 
V.  Wee1)cr.    15     Colo.     App. 
268.  62  Pac.  368  ..770, 

771,  882,     936 
Fairchild   v.    Michip;an    Cent.    R. 

Co.  8  111.  App.  591 463 

V.  Whitniore,  6  Cal.  App.  52, 

91  Pac.  336 936,     943 

Fairfield  County  Jiar  v.  Taylor, 
60  Conn.  11,  22  Atl.  441,  13 
L.R.A.  767  ....  92, 1171, 1172, 
1173.  1175.   1211.   1283,  1285, 

1287,  1303.  1315,  1325,  1326 
Fairthorne,  Re,   10   .lur.    (Eng.) 

287   615 

Faith.  Ex  p.,  9  Dowl.  (Eng.)  973     613 
Falardeau     v.     Washburn,     199 

Mass.  363,  85  N.  E.  171  .  .974,  1003 
Faleonio  v.  Larsen,  31  Ore.  137, 

48  Pac.  703,  37  L.R.A.  254.  ..  .    1045 
Falkiner   v.   Grand  Junction   R. 

Co..  4  Ont.  350    708 

Fall  Brook  Coal  Co.  v.  Hecksher, 
4-2  Hun  534,  4  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

657   852 

Fallon  V.  State,  8  Ga.  App.  476, 

69  S.  E.  592    104.     110 

Falor  V.  Beerv,  8  Ohio  Dec.  306.  6 
Ohio  X.  P.  290,  7  Ohio  X.  P. 

645   539 

Fambles  v.  State.  97  Ga.  625,  25 

S.  E.  365   147 

Fambrough  v.  State,  113  Ga.  934, 

39  S.  E.  324 1114 

Famous  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  180 

111.  246,  54  X.  E.  211    .  .   432.     434 
Fanning  v.  Minnesota  R.  Co.,  37 

Iowa  379 438 

Fant  V.  Gibbs,  54  Miss.  396  ....    1096 
Fargo  V.  Paul,  35  Misc.  568,  72 

X.  Y.  S.  21   1005 

Fargo  Gaslisht.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greer, 
10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  164,  18  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  589 575.  607,  1037 

Faris  V.  Briscoe.  78  111.  App.  242 

273,   275.     284 
Farley  v.  Geisheker.  78  la.  453, 
43  X.  W.  -27!).  (i  L.R.A. 

533 784.     788 

V.  Peebles.  50  Xeb.  723,  70 

X.  W.   231    197 


are  to  pages.] 

Farlin  v.  Sook.  30  Kan.  401,  1 
Pac.  123,  46  Am.  Rep.  100    .  . 

lies,  1190 
Farmer  v.  Crosby,  43  Minn.  459, 

45  X.  W.  866  ....  523,     527 
V.  Stillwater  Water  Co.,  108 
Minn.  41,  121  X.  W.  418 
747,  1002,  1003,  1015,  1081 
Farmers'  Bank  v.  Mackall,  3  Ciill. 

(:VId.)    447     363.    370,     503 

Farmei's  Bank  v.  Sprigg,  II  Md. 

389    '^  348,  487,     494 

Farmers,  etc.,  PJank  v.  Trov  City 
Bank.  1  Doug.    (Mich.)  "^457.  . 

414,  416,     422 
Farmers'  etc.,  Xat.  Bank  v.  Bar- 
ton, 21  111.  App.  403 777 

Farmers,'  etc.,  Tobacco  Ware- 
house Co.  V.  Gibbons,  107  Ky. 

611,  55  S.  W.  2   859 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  :kIcClure, 
78  Fed.  209,  49  U.  S.  App.  43, 

24  C.  C.  A.  64   700,     964 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Mann.  4 

Robt.  (X.  Y.)  356  .  .  721,  783.     784 
Farmers'   L.   &   T.    Co.    v.    Wal- 
worth County  Bank,  23  Wis. 

249    5G2 

Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  West- 
chester County  Water  Works 
Co.,  143  App.'Div.  78,  127  X. 

Y.    S.    569     987 

Farmers'    ^lut.    F.    Ins.    Co.    y. 

Bowen,  40  Mich.  147 343 

Farmers'  Trust,  etc..  Bank  v. 
Ketchum.    4    McLean,    120.    8 

Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  4.670    496 

Farmer's  Union  Ditch  Co.  y. 
Rio     Grande     Canal     Co.,     37 

Colo.   512,  86  Pac.  1042    148 

Farnham  y.  Gilman.  24  Me.  250     412 
Farnuni   y.   Bell.  3   X.  H.  72    .  .      541 
Farrand  y.  Land,  etc..  Imp.  Co., 
86    Fed.    393,   58    U.    S.   App. 

559,  30  C.  C.  A.  128   

244,  246.  566 
Farrar  y.  Farrar,  104  la.  621, 

74  X.  W.  5 611.  840 

y.  U.  S.,  3  Pet.  459,  7  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)  741  1137 

Farrill  y.  Head,  Barnes  X.  Cas. 

(Eng.)     41     9 

Farrington.    Re,    146    App.    Diy. 

5S0.   131   X.    Y.   S.   312  1087 
V.  V.'right.  1   Mum.   241    .  . 

422.    424,    435.  1137 


CVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Farrow.  Re.  3  Fed.  112,  4  Woods 

491    1092,  1111 

Farrv  v.  Davklson,  44  Kan.  377, 

24'  Pac.  419    1076,  1080 

Farwell    v.    Colman,    35    Wasli. 

308,  77  Pac.  379    799,     946 

Fassitt  V.  Middleton,  47  Pa.  St. 

214,   86  Am.  Dec.  535    497 

Faii<,dman  v.  Elizabeth,  58  N.  J. 
L.   309.   33   Atl.    212    ..    236, 

384,  396,  398,     499 
Faulkner,  Ex.  p..  1  W.  Va.  269 

17,       83 
V.  Hendv.    99    Cal.    172,    33 

Pac^  889   237,     254 

Faviell   v.    Eastern   Counties   R. 
Co.,  2  Exch.    (Eng.)   344    .... 

488,     490 
Fawkes    v.    Pratt,    1    P.    Wms. 

(Eng.)    593     537 

Fay  V.  Hebbard,  42  Hun  490,  4 

N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  485  ....      681 
V.  McGuire,    20    App.    Div. 
569,   47   X.   Y.    S.   286, 
affirmed  162  N.  Y.  644. 

57   N.   E.    1109    589 

Faverweather  v.  Ritch.  90  Fed. 

13    178,  199,  200,     202 

Favette  County  v.  Chittwood,  8 

Ind.  504 235 

V.  State.  60  Ohio  St.  475 

54  N.  E.  519  1125 

Fearnlev    v.    Fearnley,    44    Colo. 

417,  98  Pac.  819 224 

FearTis    v.    Young,    10    Ves.    Jr. 

(Eng.)    184    720 

Fears   v.   Riley,  148   Mo.  49,  49 

S.   W.   836    562 

Fechheimer    v.    Baum,    43    Fed. 

719     773 

Feiner   v.    Puotz,    77    ^lo.    -Vpi). 

405    359 

Fclder   v.  .Tohnson.   1    ISnilcN-    \j. 

(S.  C.)    624    ".  .  .  .      4(17 

V.  Leftwicii.    123     l.a.    931, 

49   So.   645    773 

Kclker   V.    Ilaight.    33    Wis.    259     903 

rdh.ws.  i;e,  3   111.  369    25.       83 

V.  Sinitii,   190    i'a.   St.   301, 

42    Atl.    678    729,     740 

Fells    V.    X'estvali,    2    Keves    ( X. 

V.)    152    ■ 882 

Felson.    Re,    139     Fed.    275,    l.T 

Am.  Rankr.  l?ep.  185    .  .    819.     822 
Felt    V.    Mitchell.    44    Ind.    .\\>i<. 

!)(J,   SH  N.    !•;.   72;!    9.58 


Felt    V.    Nichols,    21    Misc.    404, 

47  N.  Y.  S.  951    .  .  259.     2Gft 
Felton  V.  Le  Breton,  92  Cal.  457, 
469,  28  Pac.  490    .  .    273,  275, 

278,     281 
Fenaille  v.  Coudert,  44  X.  .].  L. 

286    555,  560,     587 

Fendall  v.  Xoakes.  3  Jur.  (Eng.) 

726.  7  Scott.  647    5- 

Fenimore  v.  Wliite,  78  Xeb.  520. 

Ill  X.  W.  204    375,     381 

Fenlon  v.  Dempsey,  22  Abb.  X. 
Cas.  114,  2  X.  Y.  S.  .. 

763    852 

V.  Paillard,    46    Misc.     151, 

93  X.  Y.  S.  1101    1051 

Fenn   v.   McCarrell.   208   Pa.   St. 

615,  57  Atl.  1108    729 

Fenner   v.   McCan,   49    La.   Ann. 

600,  21  So.  768, 701,  786. 

787,  788,  789,  944 
Fenno  v.  En^rlish.  22  Ark.  170 
374,  709,  711,  869,  870,  915, 

958,  959 
Fenton,  Re,  3  Ad.  &  El.  404,  30 

E.  C.  L.  129  613 

Fentress  v.  Robins,  4  X.  C.  610, 

7  Am.  Dec.  704  562 

Fenwick  v.  Mitchell.  34  Misc. 
617.  70  X.  Y.  S.  667,  reversing 
64  App.  Div.  621.  72  X.  Y.  S. 

1102    996,  1043 

Ferguson,  Ex  p.,  6  Cow.  (X.  Y. ) 

596    598,     624 

V.  Bassett.  4  How.  Pr.    (X. 

Y.)     168     1054, 

1056,  1057 
V.  Crawford,  70  X.  Y.  253, 
26    Am.    Rep.    589.    re- 
versing 7  Hun,  25    .... 

428.    444.     518 
V.  McBean,   91   Cal.    63,    27 

Pac.  518.  14  L.R.A.  65     193 
V.  Wilcox.    19    Minn.    449.  .      346 
Fernbacher.  P.c,  18  Abb.  X.  Cas. 

1    755,  806,     807 

Ferndon  v.  Ferndon,  1  App.  Div. 
629  mem.,  36  X.  Y.  S.  741.  .  . 

619,  951 
Fcrrea  v.  Tubbs,  125  Cal.  (i87, 

58  Pac.  308  281 

Ferrec  \.  United  Storaije  Co.. 
227    Pa.    St.   41.   75    Atl.    838 

306.     596 
Ferreri,   Re,    188    Fed.    675    .... 

823,     824 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


evil 


[References 

Ferris  v.  Commercial  Nat.  Bank, 
158  111.  237,  41  N.  E. 
1118,    affirming    SO   111. 

App.    54    415 

V.  Lawrene,    138   App.   Div. 
541.   123   N.  Y.   S.   209 

877,  981,  1032,  10G7 
Fetz  V.  Leyendecker,  157   Mich. 
355,   122   N.   W.   100    .  .    384. 

396.   408.     499 
Feuchtwanger,     Re,     139     App. 

Div.  36,  123  N.  Y.  S.  789    .  .    1218 
Feury  v.  McCormick  Harvesting 
Mach.  Co.,  6  S.  D.  396,  61  N. 

W.    162    456,     532 

Feusier  v.  Virginia  Citv.  3  Nev. 

58    .'.  .  .    462,     463 

Fidelity,    etc.,    Co.    v.    Morrison, 

129  111.  App.  360    477 

v.  Walker.  158  Ala.  129,  48 

So.   600    856 

Fidelity    Ins.,    etc..    Dep.    Co.    v. 
Shenandoah  Valley  R.  Co.,  40 
W.  Va.  627,  22  S."  E.  90   ....      702 
Fidelity    Ins.    Trust,    etc..    Go's. 

Appeal,  108  Pa.  St.  339    848 

Fidelity  Trust  Co.  v.  Raker,  60 

N.  J.  Eq.  170,  47  Atl.  6 532 

Fidler,  Re,  172  Fed.  632,  23  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  16    820 

Field  V.  Auditor,  83  Va.  882,  3 

S.    E.    707    1149 

V.  Common,   etc..    Land,     1 

Cush.    (Mass.)    11    422 

V.  Gibbs,  Pet.  (C.  C.)  155,  9 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  4.766   .  . 

446.  517.     524 
V.  Maxwell,  44  Neb.  900,  63 

N.    W.    62     1054 

V.  New  York  Cent.  &  H.  R. 

Co..    35    Misc.    (N.    Y.) 

111.  71  N.  Y.  S.  220   .  .      460 

Fields  V.  Dewitt.  71  Kan.  676,  6 

Ann.  Gas.  349,  81  Pac. 

467     456 

V.  State,       :\rart.       &       Y. 
(Tenn.)     168.    171     ... 

1116,  1169 
Fife  V.  Bohlem.  22  Fed.  878  .  .  298 
Fifth  Nat.  Bank  v.  Long,  7  Biss. 

502,  9   Fed.   Cas.  No.  4.780..    1090 
Filby  v.  Miller,  25   Pa.   St.  264 

380,  385,  401,     405 


are  to  pages.] 

Fillmore  v.  Wells,  10  Colo.  228, 
15  Pac.  343,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 
567  ....  789,  875,  894,  964, 
975,  979,  988,  990,  1003,  1026, 

1030.  1059,  1060.  1069.  1081 
Filmer     v.     Delber,     3     Taunt. 

(Eng.)    486    490 

Filon's   Estate,   7   Pa.  Dist.   Gt. 

316     729 

Finance  Go.  of  Pennsylvania  v. 
Charleston,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

4G  Fed.  426   994,  ]  03,'> 

V.  Charleston,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

48  Fed.  45,  52  Fed.  526     974 
V.  Charleston,   etc.,   R.    Co., 

52  Fed.  678    98& 

Finch   v.   Garrett,    102    la.    381, 

71    N.   W.    429    848 

Fincke,  Re,  6  Daly  (N.  Y.)   Ill 

619,     622 
Findon   v.  Parker,  11  M.   &   W. 

(Eng.)    675    656,     674 

Finerau     v.     Leonard,     7     Allen 

(Mass.)   54,  83  Am.  Dec.  665     416. 
Finlay    v.    Hey  ward,     35     Misc. 
266,   71   N.   Y.   S.   779, 
reversing  34  Misc.  818, 

69  N.  Y.  S.  648    

380.  391,  393,  394,  395,     400' 
V.  Learv,  87  Hun.  8,  33  N. 

Y.  ■'S.   872    274,     278- 

Finlcy  v.  Acme  Kitchen  Furni- 
ture Co..   119  Tenn.   698,  109 

S.   W.   504    537,   1207,  1324 

Finn,  E.xp.,  32  Ore.  519,  52  Pac. 
756,    67    Am.   St.   Rep. 

550     1169 

V.  Frink,    84    Me.    261,    24 
Alt.    851,    30    Am.    St. 

Rep.    348     650 

Finneran    v.    Leonard,    7    Allen 

(Mass.)    54,   83   Am.  Dec.   665     444 
Finney  v.  (iallop,  2  Neb.  (unofh- 
cial)    Rep.    480,    89    N. 

W.  276    1054 

v.  Pierrepont,  18  App.  Div. 

627,   45    N.   Y.    S.    977     964 
v.  Smith,  31  Ohio   St.   529, 

27   Am.  Rep.   524    851 

Firmenich  v.  Bovee,  1  Hun.  (N. 
Y.)    532,   4   Thomp.    &   C.    98 

1054,  1056 
First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Anderson,  28 

S.  G.  143.   5   S.  E.   343     346. 
V.  Douglas      County,      124 
Wis.    15.    4    Ann.    Cas. 
34,   102   N.   W.   315    ..      301 


CVIU 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

First     Nat.     Bank     v.     Hodges 

(Tex.)   G2  S.  W.  827   .  .      765 
V.  Mack,    35    Ore.    122,    57 

Pac.   326    777 

First  Parisli   in  Sutton  v.  Cole. 

3  Pick   (Mass.)   232    431 

First      State     Bank      v.      Sibley 
County   Bank.   96    Minn.   456, 

105  N.  W.  485,  489    1035 

Fisclier,  Re.  175  Fed.  531,  99  C. 
C.     A.     153,     23     Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.    427    821 

V.  Laniihein,  103  N.  Y. 
84';  8  N.  E.  251,  affirm- 
ing 10  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
128,  62  How.  Pr.  238, 
13  Abb.  N.  Cas.  10,  05 

How.  Pr.  382 526,     530 

Fischer-Hansen  v.  Brooklyn 
Heights  R.  Co.,  173  N.  Y.  492, 
66  N.  E.  395  .  .  701.  755.  980, 
1010,  1030.  1043,  1081,  1082. 

1084 
Fish  y.  Kelly.  17  C.  B.  N.  S.  194, 

112  E.  C.  L.  194 585 

V.  St.  Louis  County  Print- 
ing &  Publishing  Co., 
102  Mo.  App.   6,   74  S. 

W.   641    85 

V.  U.  S.,  36  Fed.  677  1115,  1119 
Fisher,    Ex    p.,    G    Leigh.     (Va.) 
619  ....  44,  il96, 1272, 

1281,  1302 
V.  iJattaile.  31  Miss.  471   .  . 

466,     469 
V.  Forrester.  33  Pa.  St.  501     637 
V.  Hetherington,     11     Misc. 
575,    32    X.   Y.    S.    795 

506,     532 
V.    ii..lden,    17    U.    C.    C.    P. 

395     538 

V.  Lidejjendent  School 
Dist.,  154  la.  125,  134 

N.  W.  545  853 

V.  Knox,  13  Pa.  St.  622,  53 

Am.  Dec.  503  ....  303,  951 
V.  Mclnernev,  137  Cal.  28, 
69  Pac^  622,  907,  92 
.\ni.  St.  Rep.  68  .... 

294,  296,  298.  305 
V.  .March,  26  Cratt.  (Va.) 

7i;5   418 

V.  .M.jore.  12  Lob.  (La.)  95  426 
V.  .Vlii.sick.  72  S.  W.  787, 

24  Kv.  L.  Rep.  1913..   438 


are  to  pages.] 

Fisher  v.  Mylius,  42  W.  Va.  G3S, 
26'  S.  E.  309  .  .  725, 

729,  738 
V.  Mylius.  62  W.  Va.  19.  57 
S.  E.  276  ...  7()9,  1002, 
1006,  1031,  1034.  1059.  1061 
V.  Oskaloosa,  28  la.  381  .  . 

1047,  1049 
V.  Reach,  202  Pa.  St.  74, 

51  Atl.  599  436 

V.  Willard,  13  Mass.  379   .  . 

375,     378 
Fisk  y.   Snyder,  4  Ky.  L.   Rep. 

716   ..  ..' 732 

Fitch  V.  Applegate,  24  Wash.  25, 

64   Pae.   147    854 

y.  Gardenier,    2    Keyes    (N. 

Y.)   516   665,  723,     729 

V.  Scotte,  3  How.  (Miss.) 
314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86  .  . 
384,  394,  516,  519,  548, 

552,  570,     595 
V.  Stamps,  6  How.    (Miss.) 

487     323 

Fitzgerald  v.  Fernandefi,  71  Cal. 

505.  12  Pac.  562   445 

Fitzgerald's  Ex'r  v.  Irby,  99  Va. 
81,  37   S.   E.  777,  3  Va.  Sup. 

Ct.  Rep.  1   1024.  1067.  1070 

Fitzliugh   V.   McKinnev,  43   Fed. 

461      .' 1057 

Fitzpatrick  v.  Howard,  148  App. 
Div.  802,  133  N.  Y.  S. 

345    891 

V.  Lincoln  Savings  &  Trust 
Co.,  194  Pa.  St.  544,  45 

Atl.  333    892,     918 

Fitzsimons,  Re,  174  N.  Y.  15, 
(Hi  X.  E.  554,  reversing 
77  App.  Div.  345,  12  X. 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  250,  79  X. 
Y.  S.   194    ..    0G9,  671, 

G83,    729,    739,    74G,     7G5 
Fitzsimmons  v.  Mason,   135    111. 

App.  505 032,     046 

v.  Robb,    193    Pa.    St.    5LS, 

44  Atl.  558   837 

V.   Ryan,  04  App.   Div.  404, 

72  X.   Y.  S.  05    851 

Fixen.   Re.   96   Fed.   748,   2   Am. 

I'.ankr.   Rep.  822    030 

Elaacke  v.  Jersey  City,  33  X.  J. 

i':(l.    57     '....' 801 

Kla.k    V.    .\eill.    20    Te.\.    273    .  . 

170,  188,      194 
Flanagan   v.   Pearson,  42  Tex.  1, 

19  Am.  Rep.  40   000 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CIX 


[Rcforcticos 

Flanders  v.  Kcefo.  108  Wis.  411. 

84  N.   W.  878    i:307 

V.  Sherman.  ]8  Wis.  575  .  . 

250,  252,   258,  500,     501 
Flanipen  v.  PliiiadelpluH,  51  Pa. 

St.  491    492,     494 

Flannery,  He,  150  App.  Div.  SUO, 
l.-JS  X.  y.  S.  012  .  .  27, 
/29.    1100,    1172,    1170, 

1214.  1229,  1235 
V.  Geigcr,  46  Misc.  019.  92 
N.    Y.    S.    785    .  .    724, 

734,  735,  809,  870.     873 
Fleck intrer  v.  Taffee.    149   Mieli. 

078.   113  X.  W.  311    633 

Fleishman  v.  Meyer,  46  Ore.  267, 

80   Pac.   209    385 

Fleming  v.  Burnham,  100  N.  Y. 

1    557 

V.  Flagg,  8  Ind.  303 955 

V.  Hance,   153    Cal.   162,   94 

Pac.  620    1090 

V.  Slate,  28  Tex.  App.  234, 

12  S.  W.  605    1114 

Fletcher,    Re,    10    Am.    Bankr. 

Rep.  398    822 

Re,   28   Grant  Ch.    (U.   C.) 

413    1223 

V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  109 
Mich.    363,    67    N.    W. 

330    632,     640 

V.  Cummings,  33   Neb.  793, 

51  N.  W.  144 601 

V.  Daingerfield,  20  Cal.  427 

1238,  1302,  1329 
V.  McArthur,  117  Fed.  393, 

54  C.  C.  A.  567   728 

V.  Merrimack  County,  71  N. 

II.  96,  51  Atl.  271    1143 

Fletcher's     Succession,     12     La. 

Ann.   498    1150,  1160 

Flight  V.  Cooke,  8  Jur.    (Eng.) 
125,  1  Dowl.  &  L.  174,  13  L.  J. 

Q.  B.  78  115 

Fling  V.  Trafton,  13  Me.  295.  .  .      488 
Flint  V.  Comlv,  95  Me.  251,  49 

Atl.   1044    410,     419 

V.  Hubbard,  16  Colo.  App. 
464,  66  Pac.  446  .  . 

1047,  1079,  1083 
V.  Pike,  4  B.  &  C.  173,  10 

E.  C.  L.  380  124 

V.  Van  Dusen,  26  Hun    (N. 

Y.)    600    992 

Flomerfelt    v.    Siglin.    155    Ala. 
033,  47  So.  106 847 


are  to  pages.] 

Flood  V.  I5()llineier,    (Iowa)    138 

N.  W.  1102   333 

Flora  V.   Russell,   138   Ind.   153, 

37  N.  E.  593   637 

Florence  Cotton  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Louisville  Banking  Co.,  138 
Ala.  588,  30  So.  456,  100  Am. 

St.  Rep.  50 378,     526 

Florida  v.  Georgia,  17  How.  478, 

15  U.  S.   (L.  cd.)    181    1137 

Florida  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ra- 
gan,  104  Ga.  353,  30  S.  E.  745 

1015,  1049,  1076 
Florida   East   Coast    R.    Co.    v. 
Groves,    55    Fla.    436,    46    So. 

294   632,     649 

Flournoy  v.  Lyon,  70  Ala.  308.  .   858 
Flower,  Re,  138  App.  Div.  102, 
122  N,  Y.  S.  880  . . 

1186.  1315 
V.  Lewis,  36  W.  Va.  112, 

14  S.  E.  447 1024 

Flower's  Succession,  3  La.  Ann. 

292    887 

Floyd      V.      Goodwin,      8      Yerg 

(Tenn.)   484,  29  Ain.  Dec.  130     673 
F^'loyd  County  Agricultural  etc., 
Assoc   v.   Thompkins,   23   Ind. 

348,   352 441 

Fly  V.   Noble,   37   La.   Ann.   667     312 
Flynn   v.   Bailey,   50    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)    73    468 

V.  Boglarskv,  164  Mich. 
513,  129  N.  W.  674,  32 
L.R.A.(N.S.)  740,  17 

Det.  Leg.  N.  1109  534 

V.  Judge,  149  App.  Div.  278, 
133  N.  Y.  S.  794  .  .  549 

558,  589 
V.  Neosho,  114  Mo.  567,  21 

S.  W.  903  312 

Flynt  v.  Jones  County,  20  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  041,  50  S.  W.  203  .  .  1124 
Fogarty,  Re,  187  Fed.  773,  109 

C.  C.  A.  621  818 

V.  Jordan,  2  Robt.  (N.  Y.) 

319  603,  681,  729 

Fogg  v.  Sanborn,  48  Me.  432  .  . 

380,  391 
F^oland  v.  Davton,  20  N.  Y. 

Wkly.  Dig.  59    4G2 

Foley  V.  Fo'^lev.  120  Cal.  33,  52 
Pac. "  122,  05  Am.  St. 
Rep.  147    408 


ex 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


[References 

Foley  V.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  157  Midi.  67,  121 
N.   W.  257,   16   Detroit 

Leg.   N.   246    G63,     685 

V.  Grand    Rapids,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,  168  Mich.  496,  134 

N.   W.   440    981 

V.  Kleinschmidt,    28    Mont. 
198,  72  Pac.  432  .  .  732, 

793,     910 
&  ^Yilliams  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Bell, 
4   Ga.   App.  447,  61    S. 

E.  856    356 

Folk  V.  St.  Louis,  250  Mo.  116, 

157  S.  W.  71  1123 

Follansbee  v.  Walker,  72  Pa.  St. 

228,  13  Am.  Rep.  671    ..   328,     332 
Folly  V.  Smith,  12  N.  J.  L.  139, 

140 328,     434 

Foltz  V.  Cogswell,   86  Cal.  542, 

25  Pac.  60   943,  947 

Foot  V.  Brown,  8  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

64  140 

V.  Culbertson,  8  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

62    874 

V.  Rutland,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  32 

Vt.  633    894 

V.  Smvthe,    20    Colo.    App. 
320,  78  Pac.  619  .  .  405, 

406,  764,     767 
V.  Tewksbury,   2   Vt.  97    .  . 

805,  1041,  1050 
V.  Richmond,  42  Cal.  439  .  .      414 
Forbes,   Re,   2   N.   W.    Ter.   410 

1219,  1320,  1333 
V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  150 
Ta.      177,      Ann.      Cas. 
1912D   311,   129   N.  W. 

810  462,     864 

V.  Tlagman,  75  Va.  168  ..  640 
V.  Hamilton,  Ky.  Dec.  89  .  .  411 
V.  Johnson,      li      B.     Mon. 

(Ky.)  48 533 

V.  Mohr,    69    Kan.    342,    76 

Pac.  827 685 

V.  Perrie,      1      liar.      &     J. 

(Md.)    109    ;i27,     364 

Forbusb  v.  Lcfjnard,  8  Minn.  3().'{ 

979,    980,    989,    990,  1000 
Ford  V.  I'.iggcr,  SO  Ark.  300,  97 

S.  \V.  65    378 

V.   French.  72  Mo.  250    270 

V.  Gilbert,   44   Ore.   259,   75 

I'ac.    138    .  .    9!)3,   1021,   1023 
X.  Ilarriii;'ton,     l(i     N.     Y. 
265    ..    274,    282,    283, 

284,     288 


are  to  pages.] 

Ford  V.  McLane.  131  INlicb.  371, 
91  N.  \V.  617,  9  Detroit 

Leg.  N.  349 179 

V.  Munroe,     (Tex.)     144    S. 

\Y.  349 055 

V.  Smith,  1  Wend.    (X.  Y.) 

49    423 

V.  Williams.  13  N.  Y.  577, 
67  Am.  Doc.  83   .  .   350, 

455,     527 
V.  Williams,    24   N.   Y^    359     520 
Fordtran         v.         Cunningham, 

(Tex.)    141  S.  W.  502 268 

Fore  V.  Chandler,  34  Misc.  786, 

09  N.  Y.  S.  849   902 

V.  Chandler,    24     Tex.     146 

234,  702,  780,  782,  890,     903 
Forerty  v.  Jordan,  2  Robt.    (N. 

Y.)   319   601 

Forest  Coal  Co.  v.  Doolittle,  54 

W.  Va.  210,  46  S.  E.  238 460 

Forman  v.  Hunt,  3  Dana.   (Kv.) 

617    21)0,     298 

V.  Sewerage,  etc..  Board, 
119  La.  49.  12  Ann. 
Cas.  773,  43  So.  90S   .  . 

709,  889,  904 
Formby  v.  Pryor,  15  Ga.  258..  752 
Fornes   v.    Wright,    91    la.    392, 

59   N.  W.  51    520 

Forrester  v.   Howard,     124    Kv. 
215,  98  S,  W.  984,  124  Am.  St. 
Rep.  394,  30  Ky.  L.  Rep.  375     992 
Forrow  v.  Arnold',  22  R.  I.  305, 

47    Atl.    693    589,     590 

Forsee  v.  McGuire,  109  Mo.  App. 

701,  83  S.  W.  548    849 

Forster,  Re,   49   Hun   114,  1   N. 

Y''.  S.   619    ..    611,  617,     620 
V.  Mackreth,  L.  R.  2  Excli. 

163    323 

Forstman   v.   Schultiiig,    108   N. 

Y.  110,  15  N.  E.  360 609 

Forsyth   v.   DooliUlc,    120  U.   S. 
73,  7  S.  Ct.  408,  30  U.  S.    (L. 

ed.)    586    787 

Forsvtlie    v.    Beveridge,    52    111. 

268,  4  Am.  Rep.  612 987,  1031 

Fort,  Ex  p.  36  S.  C.  19,  lo  S.  E. 

332  780,     888 

Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Car- 
lock,  33  Tex.  Civ.  A]ip. 
202,  75  S.  W.  931.  .103, 

10  1.     750 
V.  Lock,   30  Tex.   Civ.   App. 

420,  70  S.  W.  456 155 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXI 


[lUforcucos 

Fortiiiio  V.  English,  22G  111.  -ICrl, 
0  Ann.  Cas.  77,  80  N.  E.  781, 
117     Am.     St.     Pvcp.     253,     12 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    100.-)    (108,     620 

l='oslia    V.    O'Donnell.     120    Wis. 

336,  97   N.   W.   024    Stl, 

370,   3S0,   38.5.  407,  408.     435 
Foss  V.   Cobk'r,   105   la.   728.   75 

N.   W.   516    972,    1017.  1087 

Fossler  v.  Schriber,   38  111.   172 

222,     225 
FostiT      V.      Blount,      1      Overt. 

(Tenn.)    343    418,     510 

V.  Bookwalter,  152  X.  Y. 
166,  40  N.  E.  291), 
affirming    78    Hun    352, 

29  N.  Y.  S.  lie 249 

V.  Burton.    02    Vt.    239,    20 

Atl.    320    897 

V.  Clinton    County.    51    la. 

541,  2  N.  W."  207    

893,  1098 
V.  Danforth,  59  Fed.  750  .  . 

9S3.  988,  989,  994.  1047.   1049 
V.  Hall,    12    Pick.     (Mass.) 
89,  22  Am.  Dec.  400 .  . 
162,  166.  172,  190,  192,     196 
V.  Jack,     4     Watts.      (Pa.) 
334     ..     602,    095,    701, 
782,  803,  869,  871,  873,     959 
V.  Jackson.  8  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 

433    007.  838,     952 

V.  Newhrough,  00  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)  645  871,  916 

V.  Pitts,  63  Ark.  387,  38  S. 

W.  1114  532 

V.  Held,  58  Ga.  221  .  .  608, 

618,  622 
V.  Townshend,  68  N.  Y. 

203  610 

V.  Wiley,  27  Mich.  244,  15 
Am.   Rep.   185    .  .    252, 

456,  503,  531,     532 
V.  Wilkinson,    37    Hun    (X. 

Y.)    242,   244    216 

Foster's  Succession,  51  La.  Ann. 

1670,   26    So.    508    773 

Foulks   V.   Falls,    91    Ind.   315.. 

548,   569,   570,   571,  588 
Fountain     v.     Young,     6     Esp. 

(Eng.)   113   172,     173 

Fountain    County    v.    Wood,    35 

Ind.    70    ' 715 

Fowler  V.  Bell.    (Tex.)    35  S.  W. 

822    773 


arc  to  pages.] 

Fowler  v.  Callnn.  102  X^.  Y.  395, 
7  X.  E.  169,  reversing  4 
Civ.  Proc.  413,  12  Dalv 

263    605,  729,742 

V.  Equitable  Trust  Co.,  141 
IT.  S.  411,  12  S.  Ct.  8, 
35  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  794  774 
V.  Iowa  Land  Co..  18  S.  D. 
131.  99  X.  W.  1095  .  . 
235,  374,  450,  502.  507, 

712,  885,  880,     936 
V.  Lee,  10  Gill  &  J.    (Md.) 

358,  32  Am.  Dee.  172..      518 
V,  Lewis,  36  W.  Va.  112,  14 

S.  E.  447 990,  993, 

1024,  1030 
V.  Lowcnstein,  7   Lans.    (X. 

Y.)    167    : 528 

V.  Morrill,  8  Tex.  153.  .418, 

420,   431,  877,     988 
V.  Shearer,  7  Mass.  23   ....      527 
Fowles    V.    Havden,    129    Mich. 

586,   89   X"  W.   339    632 

Fox,  Re,  150  App.  Div.  602,  135 

X.  Y.  S.  821    1224, 

1227,  .1319,  1320 

V.  Davis,   55    Ga.   298    

034,     637 
V.  Deering,  7  S.  D.  443.  04 

X.  W.  520    352,     464 

V.  Fox.   250  111.  384,  95   X. 

E.  498   279,  284 

V.  Fox,  24  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 

409    729,  1048 

V.  Jackson,  8  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 

355    324 

V.  Jones,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  29,  14  S.  W. 
1007   . . .  517,  549,  563, 

570,     577 
V.  Spears.  78  Ark.  71,  93  S. 

W.  560    154,     157 

V.  Willis,  114  Kv.  940,  72 
S.  W.  330.  73  S.  W.  743 

780.     783 
Fov  V.  Armstrong,  113  la.  029, 

85  X.  W.  753   207 

V.  Cooper,  2   Q.   B.  937,   42 

E.  C.  L.  985,  6  Jur.  128     279 
Traas  v.  Barlement,  25  X.  J.  Eq. 

84    630 

Fraatz  v.  Garrison,  83  111.  60..      733 
Francis,  Re,  73  Misc.  148.  132  X. 

Y.   S.   695    211 

Re,    5    Kulp.    (Pa.)    17     .. 

841,  897,     898 


CXll 


TADLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Francisco  v.  Dove,  231   111.  402, 

83  N.  E.  205    231.     305 

Frank  v.  Crawford,  14  Mo.  App. 

599    849 

V.  Dickey,  139  Fed.  744,  71 
C.  C.  A.  562,  15  Am. 
Bankr.  Rep.  155  .  .  820, 

821,  825 
V.  Morlev,  lOG  Mich.  635, 

64  N.  W.  577 178,  183 

Franklin  v.  National  Ins.  Co.,  43 

Mo.  4!)1    481 

V.  Warden,  9  Minn.  124    .  .      505 
Franklin  County  v.  Layman,  145 
111.  138,  33  N.  E.  1094 

232.  233,     723 
V.  Layman,  43  Jll.  App.  163     952 
Franz     Falk     Brewing     Co.     v. 
Hirsch,  78  Tex.  192,  14  S.  W. 

450    250 

Franzone     v.     Tumminelli,      67 

Misc.  549,  123  N.  Y.  S.  455 .  .      581 
Frary   v.   Dakin,   8   Johns,    (N. 

Y.)     353     540 

Eraser    v.    Haggerty,    86    Mich. 
521,   49   N.'  W.    CAG    .  . 

782,  888,  889,  899.     902 
V.  Halifax,   etc.,  R.   Co.,   18 

Nova  Scotia  23    307 

Fray  v.  Foster,  1  F.  &  F.  (Eng.) 

681    565 

V.  Voules,   1  El.  &   El.  839, 

102  E.  C.  L.  839,  5  Jar. 

N.  S.  1253,  28  L.  J.  (,>. 

B.  232,  7  W.  R.  446   .  .      403 

Frazier  v.  Parks.  56  Ala.  363 .  . 

500,  501 
Fread  v.  lloag.  132  111.  App.  233  847 
Frear  v.  Drinker,  8  Pa.  St.  520 

328,  331 
Frederick  v.  State,  39  So.  915.  .  175 
Freedman,    Re,    113    App.    Div. 

327,  99  N.  Y.  S.  135 1210 

Freeland    v.   Nott,   8    Paige    (X. 

Y.)    431     470 

Freelove   v.   Cole,   41    Barb.    (N. 

Y.)   318    280 

Freeman    v.    lUirnum,    131    Cal. 
386,    63     Pac.    691,    82 

Am.  St.  Rep.  355    1097 

V.  Brchiii  (liid.)  30  N.  E. 
712.  allirmed    31    N.    K. 

545   404,  407,     408 

V.    i'.icwslcr,  93  (;a.  648,  21 

S.   E.  165    166 


are  to  pages.] 

Freeman   v.   Shreve.   86   Pa.   St. 

135 844 

V.  Wright.  113  111.  App.  159  638 
Freerks,  Re,  11  N.  D.  120,  90  X. 

W.  265  1176.  1190.  1241 

Frei  v.  McMurdo,  101  Wis.  423, 

77  N.  W.  915  995 

French,  Re,  37  X.  Bruns.  359  .  . 

48.   53 
V.  Armstrong,  79  N.  .1.  Imj. 

289,  82  Atl.  331  604 

V.  Armstrong,    80    X'.   J.    L. 

152.  76  Atl.  336  .  .  583,     584 
V.  Cunningliam,      149      Ind. 
632.    49    X'.    E.    797    .  . 
723,  740,  742,  747.  748, 
760,  780,  792,  807.  875, 

944,  945,  947 
V.  Hall,  119  U.  S.  152,  7  S. 
Ct.    170.   30   U.    S.    (L. 

ed.)    375    327 

Freston,  Re,  11  Q.  B.  D.   (Eng.) 

545   621 

Frey    v.    Michie,    68   Mich.    323, 

36  X.  W.  184   1150 

Friar  v.  Curry,  119  Ca.  908,  47 

S.  E.  206 510 

Frickcr  v.  Van  Grutten    [1896] 

2  Ch.  649    538 

Friedman,  Re,  27   Hun    (N.  Y.) 

301   296,  303,  304,     609 

Friend   v.   Duryee,   17  Fla.   Ill, 

35   Am.   Rep.   89    323,     324 

Frink  v.  McComb,  60  Fed.  486.  . 

785,  791.  800,  1053 
Frissell  v.  Haile,  18   Mo.  18    .  . 

701,    860,     979 
Fristop  V.  Gillen,  80  S.  W.  823, 

26   Ky.  L.  Rep.   149    848 

Fritchev  v.  Bo.sley.  56  .Md.  94  .  . 

384,    391,  "408,    409,    411,     416 
Fromme  v.  Grav,  17  Misc.  77,  39 

N.  Y.'S.  856    1057 

V.  Union  Suretv  &  Guaran- 
ty   Co.,    39    Misc.    105, 
78   N.   Y.   S.   895    ....      993 
Frost      V.      Belmont,      6      Allen 

(Mass.)    152    931 

V.  Frost,    1    Barb.    Ch.    (N. 

Y.)    492    785,     943 

v.  Lawler.  34   Mich.  235    .  .      253 
V.   Lawrence,   138  App.  Div. 

105,   122   N.    V.   S.   913     953 
V.  PvciiKich,    40     Misc.    412, 

81  iX.  Y.  S.  246   

785,    796,     797 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXlll 


[RefereiK'os  arc  to  pages.] 


Frowlev  v.  Superior  Ct.  158  Cal. 

220/110    Vixc.    817     248 

Fry  V.  Calder,  74  Ca.  7   

993.  998.  102(i.  1076 
V.  Estes,  52  Mo.  App.  1    .  . 

859,     937 
V.  Lofton.  45  f.'a.  171.  .870,    .916 
Frybarger  v.  McMillen,  15  Colo. 

349,   25   Pac.   713    131 

Frye  v.  Calhoun  Count v,  14  111. 

132  ' 437 

V.  Ferguson,  6  S.  D.  392.  61 

X.  W.  161  936,  939 

Fryer  v.  Dickcn,  47  .'^.  W.  341, 

20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  696  ....  781,  784 
Fugate  V.  Millar,  109  Mo.  281. 

19  S.  W.  71  638,  643 

Fuhrer  v.  State,  55  Ind.  150    .  .    1153 

Fuller,  Re,  4  Kulp   (Pa.)   479   ..      558 

V.  Cason,  26  Fla.  476.  7  So. 

870   1019 

V.  Clemmons,  158  Ala.  340. 
48   So.   101    ....    1004, 

1029.   1033,  1081,  1084 

V.  Little,  69  111.  229   562 

V.  Madison  County.  33  Neb. 

422,  50  N.  W.  255 1125 

V.  Stevens     (Ala.)     39     So. 

623    ...    766,   931,   936,     941 
V.  Wood,  137  Ga.  66,  72  S. 

E.  504    205 

Fullerton    v.    National    Burglar 
&  Theft  Ins.  Co..  63  How.'Pr. 

5.   10  Abb.  N.   C.  364    362 

Fullhart    v.    Fullhart,    109    Mo. 

App.  705,  83  S.  W.  541    ....      907 
Fulton    V.    Davidson,    3    Hoisk. 

(Tenn.)    614    947 

V.  Harrington.      7      Iloust. 
(Del.)   182,  30  Atl.  856 

1004,  1023 
V.  Maccracken,  18  Md.  528, 

81  Am.  Dec.   620    215 

V.  Western   Stove  IMfg.  Co. 
(Tex.)    45   S.   W.    1035 

726,  917,     918 
Funded  Debt  Coni'rs  v.  Younger, 
29  Cal.  147,  87  Am.  Dec.  164 

27.   455,  457,     460 
Funk    V.    Kansas    Mftr.    Co.,    53 

Neb.  450,  73  N.  W.  931     562 
V.  Mohr.    185    111.    395,    57 
N.    E.    2.    affirming    85 
HI.  App.  97   ..200.  726. 

739,  873,     918 


Fiii'nival   v.  P>nvle.  4  Russ.  142, 

6   L.  .7.   Ch.   91.  28   Rev.  Rep. 

34    403.     489 

Fiirst  V.  Miiller.  5  (Jhio  Cir.  Dec. 

361.  11  Oliio  C^ir.  Ct.  178 893 

Finth  V.  Stahl.  205  Pa.  St.  439. 

55    Atl.    29,    10    Am.    Raiikr. 

Rep.  442   826 


G. 


Gaar   v.   Hughes    (Tenn.)    35    S. 

W.  1092   .\549,  570.  572.  r)73,     574 
Gabbert    v.    Pentield,     125     Mo. 

App.  436.  102  S.  W.  627.  .877,     887 
Gable    v.    Ilain,    1    Pen.    &    W. 

(Pa.)    264    499 

Gabriel  v.  McMullin,  127  la.  426, 

103  N.  W.  355 161,  181, 

206,     223 
V.  Schillinger    Fire    Proof, 
etc.,  Co.,  24  Misc.  313, 
6  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  1,  52 

N.  Y.  S.  1127   621 

Gadsden,  Re,  89  S.  C.  352,  71  S. 

E.  952   1212,  1215,  1309,  1320 

Gadski-Tauscher    v.     Graff.     44 
Misc.    418.    34    Civ.    Proc.    25, 

89  N.  Y.  S.   1019    545 

Gaffnev  v.  Jones,  18  Wash.  311, 

51  Pac.  461    279,  297,     304 

Gagan,  Re,  20  N.  Y.  S.  426    .  .      212 
Gage  V.  Atwater,  136  Cal.   170. 
68    Pac.    581    ....     237,    254, 

258.  261,     797 
V.  Downey     (Cal.)     19    Pac. 

113    678 

V.  Du  Puv,  137  111.  652,  24 
N.    E.    541,    26    N.    E. 

386     685 

Gager  v.  Watson,  11  Conn.   168     984 
Gaillard  v.  Smart,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y. 

385    455,   458.     459 

Gaines    v.    >^tna    Ins.    Co.,    104 

Ky.  695,47  S.W.  884..  534 
V.  Becker,  7  111.  App.  315  568 
V.  Tombeckbee  Bank,  Minor 

(Ala.)    50    414,     420 

V.  Travis.  Abb.  Adm.  297.  9 
Fed.     Cas.     No.     5.179 

1041,  1075 
Gaither  v.  Dou£;hertv,  38  S.  W. 

2.  18  Kv.  Rep.  709    918, 

920.   923.   932,     938 
Galbraith     v.     Elder.     8     Watts 

(Pa.)   81 293,  299,     300 


CXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Galbreath     v.     Colt,     4     Yeates 

(Pa.)    551    488 

V.  Rosers,     30     Mo.     App. 

401    483 

Gale.  Re.  75  N.  Y.  526,   .  .   1244,  1325 
V.  Gall.  45  Hun  591.  10  X. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  331   444 

Gallagher  v.  McBiide.   66  N.  J. 

L.   360,  49  Atl.  582    .  .      348 
V.  Williamson.  23  Cal.  331, 
83   Am.   Dec.   114    .... 

154,     205 
Gallaher  v.  State,  28  Tex.  App. 

247,  12  S.  W.  1087    .  .      628 
V.  Thompson,  Wriqht 

(Ohio)  466   551.     552 

Gallawav  v.  Burr,  32  Mich.  332     632 
Gale  V.  Tode,  74  Hun  .542,  26  N. 
Y.  S.  633.  anirmed  148  N.  Y. 

270,   42    X.   E.   673    209 

Gallison      &      Hobson      Co.      v. 

Rawak,  3  N.  \'.  S.  802   1074 

Gallowav  v.  Com.,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

'720   1122 

V.  State.   88   Xeb.   447.   129 

N.  W.  987    1111 

V.  Stewart,  49  Ind.  156,  19 

Am.    Rep.    677     643 

Gallup    V.    Henderson,    53    Hun 

633   mem.,   6   N.   Y.   S. 

914.  affirmed  127  X.  Y. 

667.  28  X.  E.  254.  .274,     280 

V.  Perue,   10   Hun    (X.   Y.) 

525    862,     963 

Galpin  v.  Chicago.  159  111.  App. 
135,  affirmed   249   111.  554.  94 

N.  E.  961    1123 

V.  Page.    18    Wall.    350,    21 

U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  959   ....      266 
Galusha  v.  Wendt,  114  la.  597, 

87  X.  W.  512   685 

Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  (iinth- 
er,  96  Tex.  295.  72  S.  W.  166, 
affirming    30    Tex.    Civ.    Ai)p. 

161,   70    S.    W.    96    735, 

739,   757     812 
Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 

81  Tex.  479,  17  S.  W.  133   .  .      553 
(Jambert  v.  Flart,  44  Cal.  542   .  . 

548,    549.    551.    553.    565,     586 
Gambr*'!!     v.     Southern     Moliiic 

I'h)\v  Co.   (Miss.),  (iO  Sn.  1012     360 
(larniiion  v.  Chandler,  30  Me,  l.")2 

998.    1030.  1048 
( iii  ininoti-i      \'.      ( lulhraiisoii,      78 
.Minn.  21.  SO    X.   \V,   779    ... 

676.     750 


are  to  pages.] 

Gammons  v.  .Tohnson,  70  ^Minn. 
70,  78  X.  W.  1(13,"),  dis- 
tinguishing Gammons 
V.  Johnson.  (59  Minn. 
488,  7-2  X.  W.  563.  .659, 
362,  664,  676,  728,  750, 

755,  756,  757,  780.     761 
Gandy  v.  State.  27  Xel).  707,  43 
X.  W.  747,  44  X.  W. .  . 
108.. 1099.   1107.   1111,  1118 
Gantzer    v.    Schmeltz,     206     111. 

560.  69  X.  E.  584   772 

Ganus  v.  Tew,  103  Ala.  358.  50 

So.  1000    203 

Ganzer   v.    Schiffbauer.    40    Xeb. 

633,  59  X.  W.  98  .  .   322,  519,     520 
Garbett,   Re,   18   C.   B.    403.    86 

E.   C.   L.   403    .  .    1268,    1278,  1333 
Gardemal  v.  McWilliams.  43  La. 
Ann.  454.  9   So.   106,  26   Am. 

St.  Rep.  195    533.     534 

Garden  Citv  v.  Abbott,  34  Kari. 

283,  8  Pac.  473   101.     103 

Gardes  v.  U.  S..  87  Fed.  184.  .      1135 
Gardiner  v.  Tvler,  36  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)    63,' 5  Abb.  X.   S.   33 

237,  611     797 
Gardner,  Re,  56  IMisc.   272,  106 
X.   Y.   S.  417    ...    609, 

623,     624 
V.  Jessop,    2    Wils.    C.    PI. 

(Eng.)    42     9 

V.  McAuley,    105   Ark.    439, 

151   S.   W.   997    848 

V.  Mobile,  etc..  R.  Co..  102 
Ala.  635.  15  So.  271.  48 
Am.  St.  Rep.  84  .  .  375, 

380,  497,     498 
V.  State,  55  X.  J.  L.  17,  26 

Atl.  30  1107 

V.  Tvler,   5  Abb.   Pr.  N.   S. 

'33      261 

V.  Wood,  37  Misc.  93,  74  X. 

Y.   S.   750    556,     584 

Gardv    V.    Mollit,    14    W.    X.    C. 

(Pa.)    438    126,     128 

Garfield    v.    Kirk,    65    Barb.    (\. 

Y.)   464   789,  802,  916, 

926,  936,  937,  940,  941 
V.  U.  S.,  32  App.  Cas.  (D. 
C),  109  ..  1179,  1187. 

1282.  1311,  1330 
V.  U.  S.,  32  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C).   153  1309 

(iargano  v.  Pope,  184  Mass.  571, 
6!)  X.  10.  343,  100  Am.  St. 
Rep.  575  667 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxv 


[References 

Garinger    v.    Palmer.    126    Fed. 

906,  61  C.  C.  A.  436    .  .    293,     301 
Garland,  Ex.  p.,  4  Wall.  333,  18 
U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    366    .  .    14,  16, 
17,    31,    32,    41,    83,    84,    100, 

1166,   117],    n72,   1180,  127G 
V.  Jacnmb,    L.    R.    8    Exch. 

216   323 

Garlington,  Re,  115  Fed.  999,  8 

Am.  Bankr.   Rep.   602    823 

Garner  v.  Garner,  1  Lea  (Tenn.) 

29  993,  1027 

Garr  v.  Breeze.  10  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

77  (Abstract)    

V.  :Mairet,    1    Hilt.    (X.    Y.) 

498    781,   862     916 

V.  Selden,    4    N.   Y.    91,    re- 
versing 6  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

416    140.     533 

Garrett  v.  Hanshiie.  53  Oh.  St. 
482,  42  N.  E.  256,  35  L.R.A. 

321    352,     487 

uarrigan  v.  Dickey,  1  Ind.  App. 
421,    27   N.    E.    713    .  . 

479,   485,     494 
V.  Huntimer,  21  S.  D.  269, 

111  N.  W.  563    1055 

Garrigus  v.  Gilbert,  4  Kv.  L. 
Rep.     1001     (Abstract) 

784,    786,   787,     789 
V.  State,  93   Ind.   239    .... 

31.   1178,  1206 
Garrison    v.    McGowan,    48    Cal. 

592    235.  415,   435,  444 

Garry  v.  McGarry,  9  Pa.  Super. 
Ct.  71,  29  Pittsb.  Leg. 
J.  N.  S.  236,  43  W.  N. 

C.   268    478 

V.  Supervisors        of       New 
York,  7  Robt.    (N.  Y.) 

464     465 

Garsed   v.    Boyd.    12   W.    N.    C. 

(Pa.)    16    566 

Garter  v.  U.  S.,  31  Ct.  CI.  344  .  . 

1136,  1142 
Garthwaite    v.    Wentz.    19    La. 

Ann.  196    391,     392 

Garvey   v.   State    (Tex.),   88    S. 

W.   873    147 

Garvin  v.  Crowlev,  116  Wis.  496, 

93  N.  W.  470  ....  993,  1041 
v.  Lovvry,    7    Smedes    &    M. 
(Miss.),  24  ..  380,  391. 

394,  407,     408 
Gasawav  v.  Thomas,   56   Wash. 
77,    20    Ann.    Cas.    1337,    105 
Pac.  168   339,     340 


are  to  pages.] 

Gaskill  V.  (Mass,  1  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

252  527 

Gasscr.  Re,  104  Fed.  537,  44  C. 

C.  A.  20   415,     419 

Gaston  v.  Austin,  52  Iowa,  35,  2 

N.   W.   609    764 

v.  King,  63  Miss.  326    

302,     303 
Gasque    v.   Moodv,   12    Smed.    & 

M.   (Miss.),  153   149 

Gasquet  v.  Fidelity  Trust,  etc., 
Co..  59  Fed.  80,  13  U.  S.  App. 

564.  6  C.  C.  A.  253    468 

V.  Warren,     2       Smed.       & 

M.    (Miss.)    514    391 

(;ates,  Re.  51  App.  Div.  350,  31 
Civ.    Proc.    88,    64    N.    Y.    S. 

1050    1033,  1073 

Re,  1  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  236    .... 

1186.  1273 
Re   (Pa.)   2  Atl.  214,  17  W. 

N.  C.  142   1241,  1305 

V.  Brinkley,  4  Lea    (Tenn.) 

710    341,     486 

V.  De  La  Mare,   142   N.   Y. 
307,  37  N.   E.   121,  re- 
versing    66     Hun     626 
mem.,  20  N.  Y.  S...837.     987 
V.  MfClenahau  (la.),  103  N. 

W.  969   772,     780 

v.  Morton      Hardware      Co., 
146  Ala.  692   mem.,  40 

So.  509    777 

V.  Union   Sawmill    Co.    122 

La.  437.  47  So.  761    .  .      632 
Gathright  v.  Marshall,  1  lien.  & 

M.   (Va.)   427    575 

Gatz  V.  Harris.  134  Ky.  550,  121 

S.  W.  462,  463   633,  640, 

64L  642,  643.  045,     646 
Gaudet     v.     Esplin,     9     Quebec 

Super.  Ct.  210   137 

Gaul  v.  Groat,  1  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

113    328 

Gaulden  v.  State,  11  Ga.  47 

311.  318,  1095 
Gauthier    v.    Gardenal,    44    La. 

Ann.  884,  11  So.  463..      355 
V.  St.  Pierre,  28  L.  C.  Jur. 

16     124 

Gay  y.  Parpart,  106  U.  S.  679, 
1   S.  Ct.  456,   27   U.  S. 

(L.   ed.)    256    266 

V.  Rogers,    3   Cow.    (N.   Y.) 

368    10.     115 

Gayle  v.  Benson,  3  Ala.  234    .  .      528 


CXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[References 

Gaylord  v.  Xelson.     7     Kv.     L. 

Rep.  821    884.  933.     963 

Geanga    County    v.    Osburn,    4ti 
Ohio  St.  271.  20  K.  E. 

333    1125 

V.  Rarnev.      13      Ohio      St. 

388  ". 716 

Gebhard.  Re.  140  Fed.  571.  15 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  381  823 

Cedders    v.    Havgood,    182    Fed. 

109   ' 1218 

Gedney  v.  Avers,  111  ]\Iinn.  66, 

126 "n.  W."  398    887.     917 

Gee   V.    Culver,   12    Ore.    228,    6 

Pac.   775    650 

Geer  v.  Frank,  179  111.  570,  53 
N.  E.  965,  45  L.R.A.  110,  af- 
firming 79  111.  App.  195    

662.   665.   670,   671,     728 
Gehrke  v.  Gehrke,  190  111.  166, 

60  N.  E.  59  848 

Geib  V.  Topping,  83  N.  Y.  46.. 

543,     545 
Gelders    v.   Haygood,     182     Fed. 

109    ^ 1214,  1246 

Gelston  v.  Swartwout,  1  Johns. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    136    471.     473 

Gemberling    v.     Sp-aulding.     104 

Mich.  217,  62  N.  W.   342    ...      375 
Gemmell  v.   Rice,  13  Minn.  400     41G 
Genera]    Council    of   the    Bar   v. 
Inland  Revenue         Com'rs 

[li)07]    1    K.    B.    (Eng.)    462     695 
General  Electric  Co.  v.  Jonathan 
Clark,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  170 

170,     171 
Genest    v.    Las    Vegas    Masonic 
Bldg.  Assoc,  11  N.  M.  251,  67 

Pac.  743   133.     854 

Gent  V.  Delaware,  etc..  Canal 
Co.,  13  Misc.  409,  35  N.  Y.  8. 

147     337 

v.  KetcluiMi.    62   N.    Y.    626     198 
Genrow     v.      Flvnn,     Kifi     .Midi. 
',CA,     Ann.     Cas.     19121)     038, 
131    X.    \V.    1115.    35    L.R.A. 

(.N'.S.)    960    244 

Gentib'     v.     Plasencia,     10     La. 

Ann.  20:!   845 

Geogliegan    v.    Athis    S.    S.    Co.. 

10  Dalv  229.  Id  \.   V.  S.   121.. 337 
(U'orgc    v.    I'.iinisl.v.    1    Cliit.    8. 

18    K.   C.    L.   13    127 

v.   Iliirst.  31    Fnd.  App.  (Kill. 

(IH    N.    E.    1031     1 57 

V.  Silva,  (>S  Cal.  272,  9  I'ac 

257     187 


arc  to  pages.] 

George  Ilalbert  Co..  Re,  134  Fed. 
236,   67   C.  C.   A.    18,    13   Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.    399    819 

Georse   IToinstoin    Co.   v.   Cran- 

dail.  156  111.  App.  520  .  .  402,     544 
Georgia  Lumber  Co.  v.  Strong.  3 

IIow.  Pr.    (N.   Y.)    246 474 

Georgia   R.,   etc.,   Co.   v.   Crosbv 

(Ga.)  78  S.  E.  612  ".  1042 

Gephard,  Re,  1  Johns.  Cas.  (N. 

Y.)  134  1331 

Gerard's  Case,  2  W.  Bl.    (Eng.) 

1123     114 

Gerety  v.  O'Sheehan,  9  Cal.  App. 

447.   99   Pac.   545    184 

Gerhardt  v.  Tucker,  187  Mo.  46, 

85  S.  W.  552   186 

Germaine   v.    Mallerich,    31    La. 

Ann.  371   369 

German  v.  Brown.  145  Ala.  364, 

39  So.  742   602,     730 

v.  Browne,  137  Ala.  429,  34 

So.  985    .  .    1002,  1006,  1081 
German-American     Ins.     Co.     v. 
Buckstaft',  38  Neb.  135,  56  X. 

W.   692    491 

German  Nat.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Vir- 
ginia State  Ins.  Co.,  108  Va. 

393,   61    S.   E.   870    843,     845 

Germania  Iron  Co.  v.  U.  S..  58 
Fed.   334,   19   U.   S.   App.    10. 

7   C.  C.  A.  256    1137 

Germania  Safety  Vault  &  Trust 
Co.'s  Assignee  v.  Hargis,  64 
S.  W.  516.  23  Kv.  Rep.  874  .  . 

704.   790,     934 
Gesclieidt  v.  Quirk,  66  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    272.  5  Civ.  Proc.  38     682 
Getchell  v.  Clark,  5  Mass.  309  .  . 

804.  10  in,  1046 
Getzlaff  v.  Seliger.  43  Wis.  297  181 
Gfeller.  E.\  p.,  178  Mo.  248.  269, 

77  S.  W.  552 195.  216.     222 

Ghew  V.    l^'armers'   Bank.  2   ]\ld. 

Ch.  231    155 

(iibhoney  v.  Board  of  Chosen 
I"'reehol(lers.    122    Fed.    46,   58 

C.   C.  A.  228    1119 

Gibbons     v.     Gibl)ons,     4     Ilarr. 

(Del.)    105    237 

v.   Hoag,   95    111.   45    299 

V.  Missouri   Pac.  R.  Co..  40 

Mo.  Ap]..  146 935.     941 

(;ilibs   v.    Davis.    11    Ore.    2SS.    3 

I'ac.  677   871,     877 

v.    L()(imis.     10    .lolins.     (X. 

V.)     463    115. 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXVll 


[Pa'fcreiicos 

Gibbs  V.   Prindlc,    ]1   App.    Div. 
470,  42  X.  V.  S.  32!).  . 

4()2     824 
Ciberson,  Ex  p.,  4  Ciancli  (('.  C.) 
503,    10    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    5.3SS 

514,  54S,  1247 
Gibson,  Re,  13  Ont.  Pr.  350   .  .      120 
V.  Allen,  18  S.  D.  417,  100 

X.    W.    1096     485,     486 

V.  Buckner,  65  Ark.  84,  44 

S.  W.  1034 1028 

V.  Chicago,  M.  &  P.  R.  Co., 
122  la.  565.   98   X.   \V. 

474 709,  982,  983, 

991,  1000,  1032,  1051 
V.    Hitchcock,    35    La.    Ann. 

1201    355,    433,     510 

V.  Holmes,  78  Vt.  110,  62 
Atl.  11,  4  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

451     532 

V.  Jeyes,  6  Ves.  Ji\  (Eng. ) 
266,    5    Rev.    Rep.    295 

273,   277,     283 
V.     Le  Temps  Pub.  Co.,   10 

Ont.  L.  Rep.  434    699 

V.  Xelson,  111  Minn.  183, 
126  X.  W.  731,  137  Am. 
St.  Rep.  549,  31  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)   .523  .  .  384,  386, 

390,  458,     476 
V.   Southwestern   Land    Co., 
89   Wis.  49,   61   X.   W. 

282     774 

v.  State,  59  Miss.  341    427 

V,  Sun  Printing,  etc.,  Assoc, 
71  App.  Div.  566,  76  X. 

Y.   S.   197    133,     137 

Gick  V.  Stunipf,   126   App.  Div. 

548,  110  X.  Y.  S.  712    ..211,     220 
Giddings    v.    Eastman,    5    Paige 

(X.  Y.)   561   ..  293,  296,  303,     304 
bidding's    Claim,    14   Op.   Atty. 

Gen.  367    1140 

GiflFord   v.   Thorn,    9    X.    .T.    Eq. 

702    417,  440,     492 

Gifuni,  Re,   137   App.   Div.   351, 

121  N.  Y.  S.  1131   1315 

Gigand  v.  Xew  Orleans,  52  La. 

Ann.  1259,  27  So.  794   427 

Gihon  V.  Albert,  7  Paige  (X.  Y.) 

278    556,     629 

Gilbank  cv.  Steplienson,  30  Wis. 

155    125,     130 

Gilbert  v.  Fav.  4  App.  Cas.    (D. 

C.)  3S  ..  873,  881,  918,     964 

V.  Holmes,  64  111.  548    662 

V.  Isl-.am,   16  Conn.  525    ..    1119 


are  to  pages.] 

Gilbert  v.  Murphy,  103  Fed.  520 

273,     301 
V.  People,   121    111.  App.  423   1122 
V.    People,    1    Den.     (X.    V.) 
41,    43    Am.    Dec.    646 

119,  121,  122,     533 
v.     Vanderpool,     15    Johns. 

(X.  Y.)    242    117,     495 

v.  \^elsch,    75    Ind.   557    .  .      572 
v.  ^^■illiams,   8   Mas.s.  51,   5 
Am.  Dec.  77  .  .517,  548, 

552,  577,     595 
Gilbertson   v.    Fuller,    40    ]\Iinn. 

413.    42    X.    W.   203    (149,   1148 

Gilchrist  v.  Brande,  58  Wis.  184, 

15    X.    W.    817,    ..520,     665 
V.  Hore,   34   Mont.   443,   87 

Pac.  443    1080 

Gildersleeve   v.   Reitz,   80   Misc. 

685,  142  X.  Y.  S.  674    993 

Giles  V.  Eaton,  54  Me.  186  ..  246 
Gilkeson  v.  Knight,  71  Mo.  405  461 
Gill  V.  Truelsen,  39  Minn.   373, 

40    X.    W'.    254    1052 

Gillardon,  Re,  187  Fed.  289  .  .  818 
Gillaspie,      Re,      ]90      Fed.      88 

821,  873,  971,  979,     990 
Gillespie,  Ex  p.  3  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 
325     ..424,     436,     437, 

1098,    1101,  1102 
V.  Mulholland.  12  Misc.  40, 
33  X.  Y.  S.  33,  affirm- 
ing 8  ]Misc.  511,  28  X. 

Y.   S.  754    619 

V.  Stanless,  1  How.  Pr.   (X. 

Y.)     101     541 

Gillett  V.  Booth,  6  111.  App.  423  458 
Gillette  v.  Murphy,  7  Okla.  91, 

54  Pac.  413    .  .  ." 736,     780 

Gillilland   v.    Brantner,    145    la. 
275,    121    X.    W.    1047 
371,  373,  374,  380,  709.     764 
V.  Gasque,     6     S.     C.     406 

390,       408 
Gillingham    v.    Clark,    1    Phila 

(Pa.)    51    7    Leg.    Int.    50    ..      532 
Gillis  v.  Cleveland^  87  Cal.  214, 

25    Pac.    351     856 

v.  Hollv,  19  Ala.  663  .  .r,60,     861 
Gillispie     v'     Stafford.     4     Xeb. 
(unofficial)     Rep.    873,    96    X. 

W.   1039    634,   644,     645 

Gilman  v.  Cocksliutt,  18  Quebec 

Super.  Ct.  552 099,     958 

V.  Gilman,  126  Mass.  26,  30 

Am.    Rep.    646     446 


CXVlll 


TAULE    OF    CASES. 


[Refereiieos 

Oilman  v.  Ilovey,  20  Mo.  280 .  . 

;55(!.     388 
V.  Tucker,     57     Super.     Ct. 
324,  18  Civ.  Pro.  50,  7 

N.   Y.  S.   G82    440,     444 

Gilmore  v.   Crosby,   7(5  Me.   5'JO     542 
V.  Hempstead,    4   How.    Pr. 

(X.   Y.)    153    132 

V.  McBride.    156    Fed.    464, 
84  C.  C.  A.  274   ..780, 

789,    887,    926,     961 
Gilrov  V.  Bodger,  27  Misc.  640, 

58  "N.  Y.  S.  392  681 

Gilson,  Re,  34  Kan.  641,  9  Pac. 

763 1098,   1147,  1163 

Gingrich,  Re.  9   Pa.  Co.  Ct.   16     844 
Girard    v.    Hirsch,    6    La.    Ann. 

651     238,    452,     494 

Girtraan    v.    Starbuck,    48    Fla. 
265,  5  Ann.  Cas.  833,  37   So. 

731     847,    860,     862 

Gist    V.    Hanly,    33    Ark.    233 

1035,  1036,  1037,  1060,     1081 
Given  v.  Driggs,  3  Cai.   (N.  Y.) 

150,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  485   .  .257,     265 
Givens  v.  Briscoe,  3  J.  J.  Marsh. 

(Kv.)    532    410 

V.  Taylor,  6  Tex.  315    267 

Gladnev    v.    Rush,    68    Ark.    SO, 

56    S.    W.    448     1028 

Glanz  V.  Ziabek,  233  111.  22,  84 

N.  E.  36  329,  332,  333 

Glascock  V.  Bridges,  15  La.  Ann. 

672    638 

Glass    V.    Davidson,    1     Baxt. 
(Tenn.)   49    ..354,  369, 

392.     394 
V.  Hutchinson,  55  Kan.  ]62, 

40    Pac.   287    1094 

V.Thompson,     9     B.     Mon. 

(Kv.)     235     388,     390 

Glea.son  v.  C'hirk,  9  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
57      ..242,     243,      564, 

871,   945,     946 
v.  Dodd,    4    Mete.     (Mass.) 

333       24.").      446 

v.  Kelloog,   52    Vt.    14    9.-)() 

(;ir'iiii    V.    (  uttle,    2    Grant    Cas. 
(  I'a.)    273    .  .5SH,    5!)S, 

5!)!),  ti()5,     (;()('. 

V.    Hill,    50    Ca.    94     '.m> 

<';ii<ldcn    V.   Cow.Mi.    123    l'"ed.   48. 

59  CCA.   172    82S,      844 

(;i..l,-    Works    V.    U.    S.,   Ct.    CI. 

497    ..601,  670,  684,  728,     754 


are  to  pages.] 

Glover  v.  Patten,  165  U.  S.  394, 
17    S.    Ct.   411,   41    U.    S.    (L. 

ed.)     760     210,     223 

Gluck,  Re,  139  App.  Div.  894, 
123  N.  Y.  S.  857  ..1210.  1211, 

1252,     1317 
Goad  v.  Hart,   128   Cal.  197   60 
Pac.     761,     964     ..311, 

723,  734,     980 
V.  State.  73  Ark.  458,  84  S. 

W.   638    1125 

Goddard    v.    Gardner,    28    Conn. 
172     ..159,     160,     161, 

172,  198,  205,  207,  221 
V.  Stiles,  90  N.  Y.  199  .  .  874 
V.  Trenbath,         24         Hun 

(N.   Y.)    182    1077 

Godefrov  v.  Dalton,  6  Ring.  460, 

■^19  E.  C  L.  132    .  .547,     554 
V.  Jav,   7    Bino.   413,   20   E. 

C.  L.   183" 566 

V.  Gibbons,         22         Wend. 

(N.   Y.)    569    500 

Godson  V.  Home,  1  Brod.  &  B. 
7,  5  E.  C.  L.  3,  3  Moo.  C.  PI. 

223     138 

Godwin  v.  State,  1  Boyce  (Del.) 

173,  74  Atl.  1101   485 

Goedenough  v.  Spencer,  15  Abb. 
Pr.  X.  S.  (X.  Y.)  248,  2 
Tliomp.  &  C.  508,  46  How.  Pr. 

347      288 

Goldberg,  Re,  79  Hun  616  mem. 

'  29  X.  Y.  S.  972  .  .1241,  1318 
Re,  49  App.  Div.  357,  63  X. 

Y.  S.  392  1230,  1317 

V.  Goldstein,  87  App.  Div. 
516,  84  X.  Y.  S.  782 

274,  284 
v.  Law,  (X.  M.)  131  Pac. 

499   26 

Golden  Gate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Superi- 
or   Ct.,    65    Cal.    192,    3    Pac. 

628      468 

Goldrick  v.  Levy,  8  Oliio  Dec. 
(Reprint)      146,     (J     (inc.     Tj. 

Bui.  20    135,    139,     141 

(ioldberrv  v.  State,  92  Xcb.  211, 
137  X.'  W.  mo    .  .1102,  1103, 

1105,    1 lOS.    Ill  1,    1112,    1121 
(Joldsniith    v.   McDowell.    I    Hill 
L.   (S.  C.)    184,  20  Am. 

Dec.     100     500 

V.  SI.   Louis  (~"an(lv   Co..  85 

Mo.    App.    595     ..887,     931 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXIX 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Goldstein  v.  Drysdale,   148  Ala. 

480,  42   So.   744    ..G32.     042 
V.  Foulkes,  19  R.  I.  291,  30 

Atl.    9    646 

V.  Nassau    Electric    R.    Co.. 
157  App.  Div.  226,  141 

N.  Y.  S.  805    1040 

Goldthwaite  v.  Dent,  3  McCord 

L.    (S.  C.)    296    772 

V.  Montgomery,      50      Ala. 

480     \ 96,    97,       98 

V.  Whitnev,  50  Fed.  008    .  .      749 
Goldville  :Mfg.  Co.,  Re,  123  Fed. 

579,   10  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  552     817 
Goldzier   v.   Poole,    82    111.   App. 

469    .  .  582.    589,   392 

Goltra    V.    Wolcott,    14    111.    89 

162.  189,     193 
Gonnigal  v.  Smith,  6  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)     106    253 

Gonzales  v.  De  Funiak  Havana 
Tobacco  Co.,  41   Fla.  471,  20 

So.    1012    858,     859 

Gooch    V.    Peebles,    105    N.    Car. 
411,  11   S.  E.  415    ..293,  290, 

309,     318 
Good  V.   Rumsey,   50  App.   Div. 

280,  63  N.  Y.'S.  981  544 

Goodale,  Re,  58  Misc.  182,  108 

N.  Y.  S.  949  807,  811,  1085 

Goodall  V.  Bedel,  20  N.  H.  205 

233,   890,     902 
Goodell,    Re,    39    Wis.    232.    20 
Am.   Rep.  42    ..31,   33, 

46,   48.   52,   53,   54       55 
Re,  48  Wis.  693,  81  S.  W. 

551    46 

V.  Ehresman,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

400    469 

V.  People,     5     Park.     Crini. 

(N.   Y.)    200    083 

Goodenough  v.  Spencer,  15  Abb. 
Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.)  248, 
2  Thomp.  &  C.  508,  46 

How.  Pr.  347    274,     287 

V.  Spencer,  40  How.  Pr.  347 

213,     272 
Goodenow  v.  Tappan,  1  Ohio  00 

134,     136 
Goodfellow    V.    Landis,    36    ;Mo. 

168 359,     300 

Goodin  v.  Hays,  88  S.  W.  1101 
..239,   201,   607,   008,   792,   793, 

790,     963 


Goodman,    Re,    135    App.    Div. 
594,   120   N.  Y.  S.  801, 
affirmed  199  N.  Y.  143, 
92    N.    E.    211     ..1122, 
1238,  1295,  1316.  1317, 
1318, 
V.  Lee,  40  111.  App.  229    .  . 
v.  Walker,     30     Ala.     482, 
497,    68    Am.    Dec.    134 
519,  521,  550,  553,  556, 
569,  586,  587,  588,  592, 
593, 
Goodnow  V.  Tappan,  1   Oliio  01 
Goodrich    v.    McDonald,    112    X. 
Y.    157,    16    Civ,    Proc. 
222,   19  N.   E.  649,  re- 
versing 41  Hun  235,  11 
Civ.  Proc.  147,  2  N.  Y. 

St.  Rep.  144 970, 

971,  976,  977,  978,  979, 

980,  1002,  1003.  1030, 

V,  Mott,  9  Vt.  395  .  . 

504,  944,  1038, 

Goods  of — see   name  of   partv. 

Goodwin  v.  Bishop,  145  111.  421, 

34  N,  E.  47    

v.  Brasraw.  87  Conn.  31,  86 

Atl.  668   

Goodwin  Gas  Stove,  etc,  Co.'s 
Appeal.  117  Pa.  St.  514,  12 
Atl,  736,  2  Am.  St,  Rep.  690.  . 
Goodvear  Dental  Vvilcanite  Co. 
v.  Osgood.  13  Pat.  Ofl'.  Gaz. 
325,  2  B.  &  A.  Pat.  Cas.  529, 

10   Fed.   Cas.   No.   5.594    

Goodvear  ^Metallic  Rubber  Co,  v. 
Baker,  81  Vt.  39.  Jo  Ann. 
Cas.    1207,    69    Atl.    160,    17 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    667    575, 

Gopen  V.  Crawford.  53  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    278    000,   007, 

Gordon  v.  Brackev,  143  la.  102, 
120  N.  W.  83,  136  Am. 

St.   Rep.   751    

v.  Camp,  2   Fla.  23    

V.  Coolidge,    1    Sumn,    537, 

10  Fed,  Cas.  No    5,606 

354,   397,  455, 

V.  Dearborn       Countv,      52 

Ind.   322    .  .  ..146,   715, 

v.  Gordon.    6    Ky.    L.    Rep. 

439 

V.  Green,    113    Mass.    259.. 

308, 

V.  Gwvdis.     34     Ap]),     Cas. 

(b.  C.)    508    ....  .725, 


1325. 
960 


760 
140 


1081 
1054 

773 

677 

184 
860' 

620 

016 


90S 
355 


520 

815 
874 
309 
830- 


cxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Gordon    v.    Hennines,    89    Neb. 
252,     131     N.     W.    228 

3G3.    1010,  1036 
V.  Mead,  81  Vt.  3(3,  69  Atl. 

134    94.J 

V.  Miller.  14  Md.  204..  783, 

785,     801 
V.  Omaha,  77  Xeb.  556,  110 

X.  W.  313    362,     363 

V.  Sanborn,     (Tex.)     35    S. 

W.   291    361 

Goreley    v.    Butler,    146    U.    S. 
303,    ]3    S.    Ct.    84,    36    U.   S. 

(L.  ed)   981    244 

Gorham    v.    Gale,    7    Cow.     (N. 

Y.)    739,   17   Am.   Dec.   549.. 

352,   411,    459,    479,    482,    489, 

506,     532 
Gorman  v.  Banigan,  22  R.  I.  22, 

46    Atl.    38    ..786,    787,    789,     790 
Gorrell  v.  Payson,  170  111.  213, 
48    N.   E.    433,    reversing,    68 
111.  App.   641.. 764,   769,   873,     960 
Gorse  v.  Parker,  36   Fed.  840..      860 
Gosewisch    v.    Doran,    161    Cal. 

511,  119  Pac.  656    118 

Goslin  V.  Campbell,  7  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)  456,  3  Cine.  L.  Bui. 

369    1029 

Goss  V.  Bowen,   104  Ind.  207,  2 

N.  E.  704   777 

Gosselin  v.  Bergevin,  11  Quebec 

Super.   Ct.   288    132 

Gossett  V.  Patten,  23  Kan.  341     908 
Goss  Printing  Press  Co.  v.  Todd, 

202   Mass.   185,  88  N.  E.  780     600 
Gothenburg   Svea  Assur.   Co.   v. 
Packham.  92  Md.  464,  48  Atl. 

359,  52  L.R.A.  95    

Gott  V.   Urighani,  41    Mich.  227, 

2  N.  W.  5    293,  294,  352, 

353,   558,     559 
Gottstein      v.      Harrington,      25 
Wash.    50S,    65    Pac.    753     .  . 

964,    lOOC),   1087 
Gough    V.    Root.    73    Wis.    32.   40 

N.    W.   647,   41    X.    W.   (;22..      960 
Gould   V.    Gardner,    8    La.    Ann. 

12    632 

Gourley   v.   McAloiicv,   29    Nova 

Scotia   319    " !)58 

fjovcrnor    v.    Lassiter,   s;!    N.   C. 

4.'!    445 

Cower    v.    IOmhtv,    18    -M''.    79.  . 

•_'1(;,  217 
(Iv.lr,-    V.  I'-lov.i,  (Miss.)  (11  So. 

69  1  ' 671 


981 


Graduates,  Re,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  301  17,  34,   85 

Gradv  v.  Sullivan.  112  Mich. 
458,  70  N.  W.  1040,  4  Detroit 

Log.  X\  52    112 

Graham    v.    Andrews,    11    Misc. 
649.   24   Civ.   Pro.   263, 

32  X.  Y.  S.  795   433 

V.  Cliapman,     etc..     Works, 
145   App.   Div.   62,    129 

X.  Y.  S.  323    327 

V.  Dillon,    144    la.    82,    121 
X.    W.     47..  701.     780, 

924,  941,     962 
V.  Dubuque  Specialty  Mach. 
Works,     138    la.     456, 
114     N.     W.     619,     15 

L.R.A.  (X.S.)    729    

701,  728,  765,  786,  788, 

789,  790 
V.  Graham,  10  W.  Va.  355  729 
V.  McReynolds,   90   Tenn. 
703,'  18  S.  W.  272  .. 

674,  675 
V.  O'Fallon,  4  :SIo.  338  .  .  210 
V.  People,  63  Barb.   (X. 

Y.)  468  199,  213 

V.  Powers,      51      Hun      643 

mi'm..    3    X.   Y.    S.    899     471 
V.  Reno.   5    Colo.  App.  330, 

38   Pac.  835    532 

V.  Rice.     (Kv.)     1]0    S.    W. 

231,  857 
V.  Roberts,  1  Head   (Tenn.) 

56   562 

V.  Spencer.   14    Fed.   603    ..      446 
V.  Stein,    4    Ohio    Civ.    Dec. 
14(1,    18   Ohio   Civ.    Ct. 
770. . 1091,    1126,   1127,  1128 
Graham<!     v.     Douglas,     Wright 

(Ohio)    738 128,     130 

Grainger   v.    Hughes,   56    Super. 

Ct.  349,  3  X.\\  S.  828   617 

Grames  v.  Hawley,  50  Fed.  319     250 
Grnmling-Spaulding  Co.  v.  Par- 
ker,  3  Ala.   App.   325,   57   So. 

54    (i26 

Granat  v.   Kruse,    114   111.   App. 

488.    dismissed    213    111.    32S, 

72   X.   F.  744    ..670.  755,  756,     760 

Grand     Court     of     Colantlie     v. 

Downs.    98    Mi.ss.    740,   53    So. 

117    511,     512 

Gnuid  l!a|iiils  Chair  Co.  v.  Run- 
luds,  77  .Mirh.  101.  »;{  X.  W. 
1006    854 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXl 


[Rc'ffieuces 

tirand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
(Jlieboygan  Circuit  Judge,  101 
Midi.  181,  12G  N.  W.  50,  137 
Am.  St.  Rep.  495,  17  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  270   ..DSl,  DOS,  1015, 

1047,  1075,   1077 

Granger,  Re,  15  Nev.  50    1272 

V.  Batchelder,    54    Vt.    24S, 

41  Am.  Rep.  840  ..385,  388 
V.  George,   5    13.   &   C.    149, 

11    E.   C.   L.    185    588 

V.  Warrington,  8  111.  299., 
154,  102,  100,  172.  18S, 

193,     221 
Grangers'     Business     Assoc,     v. 
Clark,   84    Cal.    201,    23    Pac. 

1081    776 

•Grant,    Re,    17    How.    Pr.     (N. 

Y.)  260,  8  Abb.  Pr.  357  609 
V.  Uazeltine,  2  N.  H.  541  995 
V.  Langlev,    34    Misc.    77(), 

08  N".  Y.  S.  820   .  .792,     794 
V.  Lookout    ^lountain    Co., 
93  Tenn.  091,  28  S.  W. 
90,  27  L.R.A.  98   ..782,  1027 
V.  White,   6   Cal.  55    ..265, 

409,     470 
Grant's    Case,    8    Abb.    Pr.     (^\ 

Y.)   357   015 

Grant's  Succession,  14  La.  Ann. 

S07    328 

Grantz  v.  Deadwood  Terra  Min. 
Co.,    17   S.   D.   61,   95   N.   W. 

277    249,  300,     805 

Granz,  Re,  78  App.  Div.  399,  79 
N.  Y,  S.  899.  affirming  38 
Misc.  666,  78  N.  Y.  S.  200  .  .  031 
Grapel  v.  Hodgos,  112  N.  Y. 
419,  20  N.  E.  542.  affirming 
49  Hun   107,   1   N.  Y.   S.  823 

322,  751,     803 
Grattan  v.  Metropolitan  L.  Ins. 
Co.    92    N.    Y.    274.    41    Am. 

Rep.  372   227 

Grave  v.  Floyd,    (Miss.)    01  So. 

694    ' 072 

Graves  v.   Cole.    19   Pa.   St.   171     907 
V.  Lockwood,   30  Conn.  276 

887,     960 
V.  Long  Assoc.,  87  Ky.  441, 
9  S.  W.  297..  31 2,  314, 

492     490 
V.  Sanders.    125    Fed.    690, 
00  C.  C.  A.  422.  affirm- 
ing 105  Fed.  849  ..780, 

788,  789,     926 
Grav,  Re,  7  ^^'.  X.  C.  (Pa.)   542     897 


are  to  pages.] 

Grav,  Re,  05  L.  T.  N.  S.   (Eng.) 

743    414 

V.  Brackenridge,  2  P.  &  W. 

(Pa.)    75    782,     871 

V.  Conyers,    70    Ga.    349.. 

951,     602 
V.  Cooper,      23      Te\'.      Civ. 
App.   3,   50    S.    W.    105 

245,  246 
V.  Denhaltor,   17   Utah  312, 

53   Pac.  976    ..1030,  1033 
V.  District   Court  of  Ninth 
Judicial  Dist.,  42  Colo. 

298,   94   Pac.   287    1098 

V.  Emmons,   7   Mich.   533 .  . 

273,  279,  280,  286,     864 
V.  Fox.     43     Mo.     570.     97 

Am.  Dec.  410    185,     200 

V.  Howell,  205  Pa.  St.  211, 
54   Atl.   774.. 360,    385, 

393,     49'J 
V.  Journal  of  Finance  Pub. 
Co..  2  Misc.  200.  21  N. 

Y.  S.  967   544 

Jacket,  The,  5  Wall.  370,  18 

U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    040    .  .    1136 
V.  Lawson,    36   Ga.    029    .  . 

804,  1077 
V.  Maxwell,  50  Ga.  108  .  .  1072 
V.  Patton,   13   Bush.    (Ky.) 

625   467 

V.  Riclimond  Bicycle  Co., 
107  N.  Y.  348]  60  N.  E. 
603,  82  Am.  St.  Rep. 
720,  reversing  40  App. 
Div.   506,   58   N.   Y.   S. 

182 377 

V.  Wass,   1   Me.  257    ..250, 

251,  364,     503 
Graydon  v.  Stokes,  24  S.  C.  483     962 
Grayson  v.  Weddle,  03  Mo.  523     298 
V.  ^Vilkinson,     5     Smed.     & 
M.    (Miss.)    268    ..522, 
548,  563,  504,  506,  574, 

577.   580,   589,     592 
Grazebrook      v.      McCredie,      9 

Wend.    (N.  Y.)    437   444,     518 

Greason  v.  Davis,  9  la.  219    .  . 

334,     336 
Great  West  Min.  Co.  v.  Wood- 
mas   of   Alston    Min.   Co.,    12 
Colo.  40,  20  Pac.  771,  13  Am. 
St.  Rep.  204    ..420,  423,  425,     443 
Greeff  v.  Miller,   87   Fed.  33    .  . 

785,  843,     936 
Greek  v.  :\TcDaniel,  68  Neb.  509, 
94  X.  W.  518    958,  997,  1073 


CXXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Green  v.   Crapo,   181   Mass.   55, 

02  X.  E.  1150    

V.  Crockett,    34    L.    J.    Ch. 
000,  12  L.  T.  N.  S.  749, 

13   W.  R.   1052    403 

V.  Elgie,    5    Q.    B.    99,    48 
E.  C.  L.  99,  Dav.  &  M. 

129     523,     525 

V.  Griffin,   95    X.   C.   50    .  . 

029,     030 

V.  Jones,   39   Ga.   522    027 

V.  Lee,  8  N.  Y.  Wkly.  Dig. 

131    542 

V.  Milbank,  3  Abb.  X.  Cas. 

(X.  Y.)    138   323 

V.  Quisenberrv,       133      Kv. 

501.  118  S.  W.  301  ..  .".      857 
V.  Southern     Exp.     Co.,    39 

Ga.  20    804.  1040,  1049 

V.  Stevenson,  9  Ont.  L.  Rep. 

071    208 

Greenberg,  Re,  140  App.  Div. 
945,  131  X.  Y.  S.  531   .  .   1229, 

]31f;,  1317 
Greene  v.  Hereford,  12  Ariz.  85, 

95   Pac.  105    946 

Greenfield  v.  Xew  York,  28  Hun 

(X.    Y.)     320     202,  1087 

Greenfield's    Estate,    14    Pa.    St. 

489.  509    274,     289 

Gretnihaltrb  v.  The  Alice  Strong, 

57  Fed'.  249 980 

Greenhill  v.  Bowling  Admr's,  13 

Ky.    L.    Rep.    495    1027 

Green  l^ake  t  ounty  v.  Waui)aca 
Coiintv,   113   Wis.   425,   S9   X. 

W.  549    710,  814,     SU 

Greenlaw  v.  Pettit,  87  Tenn.  407, 

11  S.  W.  357    414 

Greenleaf  v.  People's  Bank,  133 
X.  C.  292,  45  S.  E.  038,  98 
Am.    St.   Rep.   709,   03    E.R.A. 

499    113 

Greenlee   v.    Ealv,    145    la.    394, 

124  X.  W.  100 032 

V.  McDowell,   39   X.   C.   481 

487,     531 
V.  Rowland,     85     Ark.     101, 
107   S.   W.    193    .  .    718, 

1020,  1027,   fOSl 
Greenoiigb    v.   (Jaskel,    1    Myl.  & 

K.   (Eng.)  98 ■  100,     171 

V.  Eiicv,    28    R.    1.    230,    00 

Atl.    300    1152 

Greensfein,    Re.    140    App.    Div. 

547.  125  X.  Y.  S.  791    1307 

Greenwell  v.  Roberts,  7  Ea.  03..      393 


[References  are  to  pages.] 
227 


Greer  v.  Ferguson,  50  Ark.  324, 

19   S.  W.  900    .  .    1020,  1027 
V.  Greer,    58    Hun    251,    20 
Civ.  Pro.  71,  12  X.  Y. 

S.  778   180.     185- 

Greevv,   Re,  4   W.   X.   C.    (Pa.) 

308" 1203.  1201 

Gregerson  v.   Imlay,  4   Blatchf. 
503,    10   Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    5.795 

GO],  070,     077 
Gregg,  Re,  L,  R.  9  Eq.  137,  39 
L.  J.  Ch.  107,  23  L.  T.  X.  S. 

234,  18  W.  R.  589 537 

Gregory  v.  Gleed,  33  Vt.  405   .  . 

571,  079 
v.  Gregorv,  32  X.  J.  Eq.  424  1034 
V,  Pike,  94  Me.  27,  40  Atl. 

793    489 

V.  Pike,  07  Fed.  837,  21  U. 
S.  App.  058,  15  C.  C.  A. 

33 972,  1023 

V.  Pike,  79  Fed.  520,  50  U. 
S.  App.  4,  25  C.  C.  A. 

48    409 

V.  Seaman,    5i    Super.    Ct. 

(X.  Y.)   517   278 

V.  Grocery  Co.  v.  Beaton,  10 
Kan.  App.  250,  62  Pac. 

732   858,  936,     938 

V.  Allen,  85  111.  478   27 

Gresley  v.  Mouslev,  4  DeG.  &  J. 

(Eng.)   78   ....*. 213 

Greusel  v.  Smith,  85  Mich.  574, 

48  X.  W.  616   847 

Grev,  Re,  [1892]  2  Q.  B.  (Eng.) 

440 615,     621 

Gribble  v.   Ford.    (Tenn.)    52  S. 

W.  1007    784,     981 

v.  Pioneer     Pres.s     Co.,     34 
:\nnn.    342,    25    X.    W. 

710    139' 

Gridley    v.     Garrison,    4     Paige 

(X.'y.)    047    1056 

Grievance    Committee   v.    Ennis, 
84   Conn.  594,  80  Atl.  707    .  . 

739,  745,  1215,  1210,  1217,  1309 
Griffin,  Ex  p.    (Tenn.)    71  S.  \V. 

74(i    5-2 

Re,   1   X.   Y.   S.   7    ..    1193, 

1194.    1197,  1201 
V.  Borst,  4   Wend.    (X.   Y.) 

195    131.      132 

V.  Evles,    1    H.    Bl.    (Eng.) 

"122    977,   1029 

V.  Griffin.  125  111.  4;!0.  17  X. 

E.   782    175,     183 


TAELE    OF    CASES. 


CXXlll 


[References 

Giinin  V.  Rhoton,  So  Ark.  89,  ]07 

S.  \V.  380  loni 

Griflitlis   V.  Anderson,  22   Idalio 

323,  125  Pae.  218    G77 

V.  Maxwell,    20    Wash.    403, 

55  Pac.  571   854 

Grifiiths  V.  Williams,    1    T.    R. 

(Eng.)   710   489 

Griog  V.  McNultv,  5  Misc.  334, 

25  N.  Y.  S.  504    1025,  1026 

Griggs    V.    Drake,    21    N.    J.    L. 

IfiO    56G 

V.  White,  5  Neb.  467.  .999, 

1030,  1032,  1085 
Grignan  v.  Schmitz,  18  Wis.  620     433 
Grimball  v.   Cruse.   70  Ala.   534     897 
Griniestad  v.  Lofgren,  105  ]\Iinn. 
286,  117  N.  W.  515,  127  Am. 
St.  Rep.  566,  17  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

990    626 

Grinshaw  v.  Kent,  67  Kan.  463, 

73  Pac.  92   175,     187 

Grindell   v.   Godmond,   5   Ad.   & 

El.  755,  31  E.  C.  L.  431  .  .905,     906 
Grindle    v.    Rush,    7    Oliio    123, 

pt.    2    551 

Grinnell    v.    Sherman,    60    Hun 
578  mem.,  14  N.  Y.  S.  544.. 

600,     606 
Griswold    v.    Taylor,    8    Minn. 

342    ' 772 

Gross  V.  Clark,  1  Civ.  Pro.    (N. 

Y.)    17   471 

V.  Sloan,  58  111.  App.  302.  .      561 
V.  State,  61  Tex.  Crim.  176, 
135     S.     W.     373,     33 
L.R.A.(N.S.)    477    ....      206 
Grosvenor  v.  Danforth,  16  Mass. 

74    510 

Grotius    V.    Ross.    24    Ind.   App. 

543,   57  N.   E.  46    850 

Grubb  V.  Serrill,  1  Del.  Co.  Rep. 

(Pa.)    141    433,     437 

Grubb's   Appeal,    82    Pa.    St.   23     848 
Gruber   v.    Baker,    20   Nev.   453, 
23   Pac.    858,    9    L.R.A.   302 

1S4,  185,     674 
Grubv  V.  Smith,  13  111.  App.  43 

272,     273 
Gruel   V.   Mengler,   74    111.   App. 

36    642 

Grumlev   v.    Webb,    48   Uo.   562 

384,     406 
Grundy  v.  Crescent  News,   etc., 

Co..  38  La.  Ann.  974 638 

Grundysen,  Re,  53  Minn.  346. 
55  N.  W.  557 250,  369 


are  to  pages.] 

Grunewald  v.  Commercial  Soap, 
etc.,  ^Manufactory,  49  La.  Ann. 

489,  21   So.  046' 773 

Guaranty    Sav.,    etc.,    Assoc,    v. 
Afscherman,  108  la.  150,  78  N. 

W.   823    774 

Guay  V.  Andrews,  8  La.  Ann.  141 

397,  411,     499 

Guernsey,  Re,  21  111.  443 150 

Guerrier  v.   Coleman.    135   App. 

Div.  46,   119  N.  Y.  S.  895    ..      852 
Guest   V.    Smythe,   L.    R.    5    Ch. 

(Eng.   551,   39   L.  J.    Ch.   536     305 
Gugy   V.   Brown,   L.   R.   1   P.   C. 

(Eng.)   411    861 

Guild      V.      Borner,      7      Baxt. 

(Tenn.)    266   1003 

Guilford  v.  Sims,  13  C.  B.  370, 

76  E.  C.  L.  370   1222 

Guilfoyle    v.    Seeman,    41    App. 

Div.   516,   58   N.  Y.   S.   668..      532 
Guilleaume    v.    Rowe,    63    How 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)   175 531 

V.  Rowe,  94  N.  Y.  268,  46 
Am.  Rep.  411,  affirming 
48    Suijer.    Ct.    169     .. 

252,     532 
Gulf,   etc.,   R.   Co.    V.   Eldredge, 
35  Tex.  Civ.  App.  467, 

80  S.  W.  556   1066 

V.  Ellis,  165  U.  S.  150,  17 
S.  Ct.  255,  41  U.  S.  (L. 
ed. )  666,  reversing  87 
Tex.  19,  26   S.  W.  985 

853,     854 
V.  Gibson,  42  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

306,  93  S.  W.  469 196 

V.  Hutcheson,      3      Willson 

Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  §  96     959 
V.  James.  73  Tex.  12,  10  S. 
W.    744,     15    Am.    St. 

Rep.  743    634 

V.  Knott,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

158,  36  S.  W.  491    543 

V.  Miller,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

609,  53  S.  W.  709.. 261,     737 
Guliano  v.   Whitenack,   9   Misc. 
562,  24  Civ.  Pro.  55,  1  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  75,  30  N.  Y.  S.  415 

860,  1063,   1064,  1084 
Gulick  v.  Gulick,  39  N.  J.  Eq. 
516,  affirming  38  N.  J. 

Eq.   402    184 

V.  Huntley,     144     :\ro.    211, 

252,  46  S.  W.  154.  .849,     979 
Gullett  V.  Lewis,  3  Stew.  (Ala.) 

23    383,  380,   301,     393 


CXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Gunn  V.  Cantine,  10  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)    387    57G 

Gunning  v.  Quinn,  81  Hun  522, 

30  X.  Y.  S.  1015,  affirmed  153 

N.  Y.  659,  48  N.  E.  1104 1018 

Gurden    v.    Stevens,    146    Mich. 

489,    109   N.   W.   856 648 

Gurlev   v.   Gruenstein,   44   Misc. 

268',  89  X.  Y.  S.  887 1085 

Gurnev  v.  Atlantic,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

58  X.  Y.  358    14 

Gustine    v.    Stoddard,    23    Hun 

(X.  Y^)   99   959 

Gutierez  v.  State    (Tex.)    47   S. 

W.   372    146 

Guy  V.  Manuel,  89  X.  C.  S3...     487 


H. 


n— ,  Re,  87  X\  Y.  521.  .009,  610, 

974,  994,  1036,  1087 

H.,  Re,  93  X.  Y^  381 254 

H—  T— ,  Re,  2  Penny   (Pa.)  84, 

99,  14  Lane.  Bar.  127.  .  .1328,  1332 
H.'s  Case,  5  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  539..  1273 
Haas  V.  Chicago   Bldg.   Soc,   80 

111.    248   490 

V.  Gaddis,    1   Wash.   89,   23 

Pac.    1010   481 

V.  Powers,     130    Wis.    400, 

110  X.  W.  205   ..  ..640,     642 
V.  Sternbach,  156  111.  44,  41 
X.   E.   51,    affirming  50 

HI.  App.  476 267 

Habberton  v.  Habberton,  156  111. 
444,  41  X.  E.  222.. 847, 

848,  1028 
Habegger,    Re,    139    Fed.   623,   3 
Ann.  ("as.  276,  71  C.  C.  A.  607, 

15  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  198 820 

Ilackc'tt    V.    Bible,    12  Ont.   Pr. 

482    401 

Hackley     v.     Muskegon     Circuit 
Judge,  58  Mich.  454,  25  X.  W. 

462    259 

Hadden   v.  Clark,  2  Grant  Cas. 

(Pa.)    107    409 

V.  Larncd,    83    Ga.    636,    10 

S.  K.  278   461 

Haddock  v.  Wright,  25  Fla.  202, 

5  So.  813 431 

Iladen  V.  Lovctt,    133    (Ja.    38S, 
IH    Ann.    (as.     114,  65   S.    K. 

S5:!    60S,  (;i:!,    oil 

JIadl.-v  V.  AyroH.  12  .M.I..   I'r.   X. 

s.  (X.  Y.)  240 oi;;; 


are  to  pages.] 

Hadlock   v.   Brooks,   178   Mass. 

425,  59  X.  ]•:.   lOOi) 368, 

653,  654,  668,  609,  670, 

730,     883 
HaenSLd    v.    Pacific  States   Sav. 
etc.,  Co.,  135  Cal.  41,  67  Pac. 

38    776 

Hagoman,    Re,    19    Phila.    (Pa.) 

75,  45  Leg.  Int.  226 898 

Hagemann's    Estate,   5    Pa.    Co. 

Ct.  576 735 

Hager  v.  Cochran,  66  Md.  253,  7 

Atl.  462    416,     419 

V.  Shindler,   29    Cal.    47..  . 
163,  165,  193,  194,  195, 

197,     209 
Hagerman  v.  Bates,  5  Colo.  App. 

391,  38  Pac.  1100 357 

Hague,    Ex    p.,    3    Brod.    &    B. 

(Eng.)   257   1174 

Hahn.  Re,  11  Abb.  X.  Cas.    (X. 

Y.)   423   515 

V.  Rogers,  34  Misc.  549,  69 

X.  Y.  S.  926 910 

Haiglit  V.  Holcomb,  16  How.  Pr. 
(X.    Y.)     160,    173,    7 
Abb.  Pr.  210.. 977,  988,  1030 
V.  Moore,  36  Super.  Ct.   (X. 

Y.)    294    472 

V.  Moore,  37  Super.  Ct.   (X. 
Y.)   161.. 272,  274,  275, 

743,  744,     747 
Haines  v.  Wilson,  85  S.  C.  338, 

67  S.  E.  311   252,  769,     782 

Hair  v.  Glover,  14  Ala.  500 

584,     593 
Haire  v.  Hughes,  197  X.  Y.  514, 
90  X.   E.   1159,  affirming   127 
App.   Div.  530,   111   X.   Y.   S. 

892   732,  805,  807,     910 

Hairston  v.  Garwood,  123  X.  C. 

345,  31  S.  E.  653    492,     494 

Haish  V.  Payson,  107  HI.  365.. 

789,  926.  929,  936,     940 
Ilalaska  v.  Cotzhausen,  52  Wis. 

624,  9  X.  W.  401 784 

Halbert  v.  Gibbs,  16  App.  Div. 
126,   4   X.   Y.   Ann.   Cas.   232, 

45  X.  Y.  S.  113 243,  254,  1005 

Hale  v.  Ard,  48  Pa.  St.  22.  .916,     959 
V.  Passmore,  4  Dana    (Kv.) 

70    '.  .  .      361 

Hales,    Ex    p.,    |1907]    2    K.    15. 

(  Eng.)   539    6L) 

II.ilcv  v.  luireka  Couiitv  I'ank, 
■J.]'  Xev.  127,  26  I'ac.'  64,  12 
L.R.A.   815 149,   151,     184 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxxv 


[References 

ITalfacre    v.    State,     112    Tenn. 

009,  79  S.  W.  132 125 

Hall,  Re,  50  Conn.  131,  47  Am. 

Rep.     (525 45,       51 

V.  Acklen,  9  La.  Ann.  219.  .  328 
V.  Aver,    19    How.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    91,  9  Abb.  Pr.  220 

977,  1048,  1085 
V.  Baker,  66  App.  Div.  510, 

58  N.  Y.  S.  905 532 

V.  Bartlett,     9     Barb.      (N. 

Y.)    297    681 

V.  Bishop,  3  Daly    (N.  Y.) 

109    104 

V.  Brackett,  60  N.  H.  215.  .  312 
V.  Callahan,  66  Mo.  316..  301 
V.  Costello,    48    N.   H.    179, 

2    Am.   Rep.   207 336 

V.  Crouse,  13  Hun  557 741 

V.  Davis,   90   Mo.   659,  3   S. 

W.  382 453 

V.  Gird,  7  PHll   (N.  Y.)   586 

739.  681,     685 
V.  Gunter,  157  Ala.  375,  47 

So.  155    792,     934 

V.  Hallet,  1  Cox  Ch.   (Eng.) 

134     293,     295 

V.  Lockcrman,  127  Ga.  537, 

56  S.  E.  759 1013,  1084 

V.  Presnell,   157   N.   C.   290, 

Ann.  Cas.  1913B   1293, 

72  S.  E.  985,  39  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    62    367,     368 

V.  Renfro,  3  Met.  (Ky.)  51  327 
V.  Rixey,   84  Va.   790,  6   S. 

E.  "215    ISO 

V.  Sawyer,     47     Barb.     (N. 

Y.)   116 11,  15,  19,       30 

V.  Strode,    19   Neb.   658,   28 

N.  W.  312    585,     306 

V.  Suydam,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

83     633,     037 

V.  Washington     County,     2 

Greene   (la.)   473.'.  145,     715 
V.  Williams,  6  Pick. 

(Mass.)     232,    17    Am. 

Dec.  356   420,     446 

V.  Wright,  137  Ky.  39,   127 

S.'W.  516   383 

V.  Wright,    9    Rich.    L.    ( S. 

C.)    392    602 

Hallack    v.    Loft,    19    Colo.    74, 

34   Pac.  568    383,     459 

Hallam   v.    Bardsley,    7    Ky.   L. 

Rep.  516 232,     233 


are  to  pages.] 

Hallam  v.  Coulter.  115  Kv.  313, 
73  S.  W.  772,  24  Kv. 
L.  Rep.  2200  ..  .  .370,  1021 
v.  Maxwell,  2  Cine.  Super. 
Ct.  384,  reversing  2 
Cine.  Super.  Ct.  136..  894 
Hallenback     v.     Whitaker,     17 

Johns.    (N.   Y.)    2    131,     132 

Haller   v.   Worman,   2    F.   &    F. 
(Eng.)  165,  3  L.  T.  N.  S.  741, 

9  W.  R.   348    347 

Hallett      V.      Oakes,      1      Cush. 

(Mass.)    296    718 

Halliday   v.    Stuart,   151    U.   S. 
229,  14  S.   Ct.  302,  38  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)    141    507 

Halliwell  v.  Zwick,  13  Ont.  W. 

Rep.  1    958 

Hall  Safe,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Harwell, 

88  Ala.  441,  6  So.  750  .  .   383,     395 
Halsell  V.  Turner,  84  Miss.  432, 

36   So.   531    983,   990,  1037 

Halsey,  Re,  13  Abb.  N.  C.    (N. 

Y.)    353    874 

V.  Carter,  6  Robt.    (N.  Y.) 

535     27 

V.   Stewart,  4  N.  J.  L.  420       Ift 
Halstead  v.  Nelson,  24  Hun   (N. 

Y. )    395    

Hambrick  v.   Crawford,   55   Ga. 

335     561 

Llambridge  v.  De  La   Croull,   3 
C.    B.   742,   54   E.   C.    L.    742 

442,  445,     517 
Hamburger  v.  Paul,  51  Md.  219 

384,  391,     396 
Hamel   v.  Brooklyn  Heights   R. 
Co.,  59  App.  Div.   135, 

69  N.  Y.  S.  160 353 

v.  People,  97  111.  App.  527 

577,  1225 
Hames  v.  Stroud,   51   Tex.   Civ. 
App.  502,  112  S.  W.  775.  .272, 

274,  277,  280,  702,     724 
Hamil  v.  England,  50  Mo.  App. 

338    213,     215 

Hamilton  v.  Allen,  86  Neb.  401, 

125     N.     W.     610,     28 

L.R.A.  ( N.S. )  723 .  .  283,     002- 

v.   Conyers,   25   Ga.   158    .  .      114 

V.  Grav,  67  Vt.  233,  31  Atl. 

315,   48    Am.    St.    Rep. 

811     671' 

V.  Hamilton,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 

255     8601 

V.   McNeill,   2    N.    W.   Ter. 

151     700 


CXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Hamilton  v.  ITolmos,  48  Ore.  453, 

87  Pac.  154.. 274,  283, 

701,  724,  72n,  740,  741, 

742,  765,  786,  790,  791.     919 

V.  Xcel,  7  Watts   (Pa.)   517     161 

V.   Pxogers,   126   Ga.   27,   54 

S.    E.    926    778 

V.  Salisbury,  133  Mo.  Apji. 

718,  114  S.  W.  563  ..  906 
V.  Smith,  39  Mich.  222  ...  648 
V.  Wright,  37  N.  Y.  502   .  . 

417,    418,    444,    445,     539 
Hamlin  v.  Higgins,  102  Me.  510, 

67    Atl.    625     1152 

V.  Perticuler  Baptist  Meet- 
ing    House,     103     Me. 
343,  69  Atl.  315  .  .  148,     151 
V.  Rogers,  79  Ga.  581,  5  S. 

E.  125   775 

Hamman  v.  Willis,  62  Tex.  507 

930,     964 
Hammann,  Re,  37  Misc.  417,  75 

N.  Y.  S.  775 614,  615.     619 

Hammar  v.  Atkins,  124  La.  897, 

50  So.  787    632 

Hammon  v.  Fisher,  2  Grant  Cas. 

(Pa.)   330 527 

Hammond  v.  Dean,  4  Hun    (N. 
Y.)    131,    6   Thomp.    & 

C.  337    796 

V.  Evans.  23  Ind.  App.  501, 

55  N.  E.  784 379,     380 

V.    Freeman,    9    Ark.    62    .  .      131 
Hampton  v.  Boylan,  46  Hun  151, 

10  X.  Y.  St."  Rep.  788   216 

Hamrick  v.  Combs,  14  Neb.  381, 

15  N.  W.  731  .  .  384,  391,  393,     396 
Ilamsher  v.  Kline,  57  Pa.  St.  397 

516,     586 
Hancock  v.  Colyer,  99  Mass.  187, 

96  Am.   Dec'  730    530 

V.  Pico.  47  Cal.  161    958 

Hand  V.  Cliurch,  39  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

303    938,     939 

V.  Savannali,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  21 

S.  C.  162  732 

Handlev   v.   Statelor,   Litt.    Sel. 

Cas.  "180    352,   41ti,     440 

Handlin  v.  Davis,  81  Ky.  34    ..      294 
V.  Davis,  4  Ky.  L.  i{cp.  675     285 
Hands    v.    Upper    Canada    Law 
Soc,  10  Ont.  625,  adirmcd   17 
Out.    .\]>\<.    n     ..    1182,   1219, 

1221.   1223,  1227 
Ilandv    V.    M.Clcllan,     150    Mo. 
App.  454,  137  S.  W.  2C0   ....      488 


Hanlev      v.      Cassan,     11      Jnr. 

(Eng.)   loss 576 

Hanlon  v.  Doliertv.  101)  Ind.  37. 

9  N.  E.  "782    179,     183 

V.    Wheeler     (Tex.)     45     S. 

W.  821 718 

Hanna   v.    Hutchings,    4    X.    Y. 

Leg.  Ohs.  343 221 

V.  Island  Coal  Co.,  5  Ind. 
App.  163,  31  X.  E.  846, 
51  Am.  St.  Rep.  240 

804,  877,  1030,  1040,  1075 
Hanover  v.  Reynolds,  4  Dem.  (X. 

Y.)  385  ..". 864 

Hansen,  Re,  120  App.  Div.  377, 

105  X.  Y.  S.  159  1257 

Re,  107  Fed.  252.  5  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  747  628 

V.  Creditors,  49  La.  Ann. 

1731,  22  So.  923  ....   773 
V.  Ingwaldson.  84  ,^linn. 

346.  87  X.  W.  915  ....   847 
V.  Bean.  51  Minn.  546,  53 
X.  W.  871,  38  Am.  St. 

Rep.  516  180 

V.  Grattan,  84  Kan.  843.  115 
Pac.     646,     34     L.R.A. 

(X.S.)    240    15.  1093 

V.  Hoitt,  14  X.  H.  56   .  .482.     487 
v.   Kline.   136   la.    101,   113 

X.  W.  504   .  .   175.  196.     197 
Harbach   v.    Colvin,   73    la.    638. 

35  X.  W^  663    ....    386,  394,     500 
Harben.  Re,  27  S.  D.  31,  129  X. 

W.   561    1307 

Hard  v.  Ashley.  63  Hun  634 
mem..  18  X.  Y.  S.  413, 
affirmed  136  X.  Y.  645, 

32   X.   E.   1015    184 

V.   Burton,   62    Vt.   314.   20 

Atl.   269    887 

Hardenberyli     v.     Thomjjson,     1 

dolins.   (X.  Y.)   61    265 

Haibciibrook.  Re.  135  App.  Div. 
634,  121  X.  Y.  S.  250.  affirmed 
199  X.  Y.  539.  92  N.  E.  1086 

1235,  1236.  1265,  1307,  1310 
Hardetibiirgli    v.    Fisli.    61    App. 

Div.   333,  70   N.  Y.   415    ....      327 
Hardesty's      Succession.     Maim. 

L'nrep.  Cas.   (La.)    Ill    ..2.33,     433 
IJardin    v.    Ho-vo-po-nubby.    27 

Miss.  567 414.  422,     567 

V.  McKitrick,  5  J.  J.  Marsh. 

Kv.  067    801 

V.  Osborne,  60  111.  93    358 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CXXVll 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Harding.  Re.  139  App.  Div.  482, 

125  X.  Y.  S.  264    .... 

V.    Conlon.    146    Ajip.    Div. 

842.   131    X.   Y.    S.    903 

V.  Helmer,  193   lil.   109.   61 

X.  E.  838.  iinirining  86 

111.   Ai)p.   190    

V.  Hull.  5  Ihir.  &  J.    (M(l.) 

478   

Hani  wick.  He,  12  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.) 

148,  53  L.  J.  Q.  B.  64,  49   L. 

T.  X.  S.  584,  32   W.  R.   191 

1168. 

Hardy    v.    Koeler,    56    Til.    1.52 

522,  526. 

V.  Martin.  150  Cal.  341.  89 

Pac.  111..  157,  196.  197, 

V.   Richards    (Miss.)    60   So. 

643     

Hare  v.  De  Young,  39  Misc.  (X. 

Y.)  366,  79  X.  Y.  S.  869  ..294, 

301, 

Hargett  v.  McCadden,  107  fia. 

773.  33  S.  E.  666  ....  986. 

Harois  v.  Louisville  Gas  Co..  22 

S.'  W.  85,  23  S.  W.  790.  15  Kv. 

L.  Rep.  369  ....  732, 911, 912, 

Hargroves  v.  Redd.  43  (ia.  142 .  . 

Harkavy  v.  Zisman.  96  X.  Y.  S. 

214 232.  396,  603.  608, 

Harkins    v.    ^lurpliv.     51    Tex, 

Civ.  App.  568,  112  S.  W.  136 

15,   23,   28. 

Harkins'  Succession,  2  La.  Ann. 

923    185, 

Harkless  v.  Smith.  115  Ga.  350. 

41  S.  E.  634  ..   157,  175.  191, 

Harkness  v.  Caven,  199  Pa.  St. 

267,  48  Atl.  1080   .... 

V.  Farley,  11  Me.  491    .... 

Harlan  v.  Bennett,  127  Kv.  572, 

106  S.  W.  287,  128  Am. 

St.  Rep.  360,  32  Kv.  L. 

Rep.   473    ..    982.  "986. 

992,  993.   1030, 

V.    Lambert.    19    Cal.    App. 

349, 125  Pac.  1079  .... 

879. 

V.  Lilienthal.  53   X.  Y.  438 

24.    26.   27,    787.    831. 

924.   925.    938. 

Harless  v.  Harless.  144  Ind.  196. 

41  X.  E.  592    

Harlock  v.  Le  Baron,  1  Civ.  Proc. 

(X.  Y.)  168 

Harlow    v.  Carroll.   6   App.   Cas. 
(D.  C.)    128    533,  534, 


Harmoning  v.  Howland   (X.  D.) 

1307  141  X.  W.  131    274,     524 

Harmon  v.  .Johnson.  2  El.  &  Bl. 

984  61.  75  E.  C.  L.  61,  3  C. 

&  K.  272,  17  .lur.  1096 

323,  520,     521 
280  V.  Watson.  8  Creenl.    (Mc.) 

286     453 

416   Harness  v.  State,  57  Ind.  1.  .244,  240 
Harnett  v.  Carvey,  66  N.  Y. 

641  940 

v.    Garvey,    36    Super.    Ct. 

1171  327   .' 893 

Harney     v.     Demoss,     3     How. 

527  (Miss.)    174    504,  990.  1073 

Harniska  v.  Dolph,  133  Fed.  158. 

203     66  C.  C.  A.  224  ..  476,  492,  494 

Harper  v.  Harper,  89  Xeb.  269. 

848  131  X.  W.  218    847 

V.  Harvey,  4  W.  Va.  539   .  . 

236,  392,  499,  500,     501 
308  V.  Xational  L.   Tiis.   Co.,  56 

Fed.  281.  17  U.  S.  App. 
1036  48.  5  C.  C.  A.  505  ..380, 

381.   383,    387,     399 

V.  Perry,  28  la.  57 296,     302 

913  v.    Tahourdin,    6    M.    &    S. 

349  (Eng.)   383    127 

V.  Williamson.  1  ]\IeCord  L. 
726  (S.   C.)    156    ....    881.     912 

Harr  v.  Ward,  73  Ark.  437,  84 

S.   W.   496    642 

110       Harrell  V.  Feagen,  59  Ga.  821..      631 
Harrigan  v.  Ciilclirist,  121   Wis. 

332  127,  99  X.  W.  909    312,     314 

Harrill  v.  Southern  R.  Co..  144 
330  X.  C.  542,  57  S.  E.  382    ....      479 

Harriman  v.  Baird,  6  App.  Div. 
558  518,  39  X\  Y.  S.  592,  affirmed 

541  158  X.  Y.  691,  53  X.  E.  1126 

551,  558,     947 

Harrington.   Re.   146    App.   Div. 

219,  130  X.  Y.  S.  920, 

denving  rehearing  140 

1032         App.   Div.  939.  125  X. 

Y.  S.  1123  ..1187,  1230, 

1307,  1333 
883      V.  Bean,  94  Me.  208.  47  Atl. 

147  1055 

v.  Binns.  3  F.  &  F.  (Eng.) 

940  942  502.  570.  584 

V.  Edwards,  17  Wis.  586.  84 

327  Am.  Dec.  708  24.  429 

V.  Huntlev,  4  Abb.  L.  .T.  367  518 
946   Harris,  Re.  66  X.  J.  L.  473,  49 

Atl.  728  42 

535      Re,  3  X.  W.  Ter.  70 1221 


CXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ar 

Harris   v.   Brisco,    17    Q.   B.   D. 

(Eng.)   504 074 

V.  Cuff,  48   Hun   617   mem., 

15  Civ.  Broc.  104,  1  X. 

Y.  S.  349  ...  861.  1041,  1043 

V.  Dausliertv.  74  Tex.  1,  11 

8.'W.  921.  15  Am.  St. 

Eep.  812    186 

V.  Galbraitli,  43  111.  309    .  . 

415,     419 
V.  Govett,  3  W.  N.  C.   (Ba.) 

560   552 

V.  Harris,  136  Cal.  379,   69 

Bac.    23     183 

V.  Hiekev.  19  West.  L.  Rep. 

(British  Columbia)  948     631 
V.    Mutual    L.    Ins.    Co.,    59 
Hun  625  mem.,  20  Civ. 
Bro.   192,   13   N.   Y.   S. 

718    144,     717 

V.  Osbourn,  2  Cromp.  &  AI. 
(Eng.)  629,  3  L.  J. 
Exeh.  182,  4  Tvrw.  445  958 
V.  Bearce.  5  HI.  App.  622 .  .   325 
V.  Quine,  L.  R.  4  Q.  B.  653 .  .   958 
V.  Root,  28  Mont.  159.  72 
Bac.  429  ....  384.  793, 

805.  807,  910 
V.  Snyder,  113  Wis.  451,  89 

X.  W.  660  468 

V.  State.  100  Tenn.  287,  45 

S.  W.  438   1100 

V.  Tiffany.  8  B.  Mon.  22-") .  .      459 
V.  Tisou."63  Ga.  629,  36  Am. 

Rep.  126  .  .  .   804,  1040,  1079 
V.  TreiiK'iilieei'e,  15  \'es.  Jr. 

(Kng.)    34    277,     228 

Harris's  Appeal.  (Ba.)  6  Atl.  761     517 
Harrisburg     Car     Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Sloan,  120  Iiid.  156,  21  N.  E. 

1088    204 

Harris    Countv    v.    Stewart.    91 
Tex.  133,  41  S.  W.  650  .  .1099, 

1114,  1125 
Harrison.  Re,  97  L.  T.  X.  S.  902. 
77    L.    .1.    Cli.    143,    24 

Times  E.  Rep.  118 709 

v.  Baker,  5  Litt.   (Kv.)   250     :i4!) 
v.  Hall.  S  Mo.  App. '167    .  .      958 
V.   Murpliv,     UK)    Mo.    App. 
405,  "80    S.    W.    724    .  . 

S7l>,    S7.^.    874,     875 
V.  J'erea.  1C.8  l^  S.  .•ill.   is 
S.  Ct.  12!),  42  U.  S.   I  L. 

efl.)    478    812 

Tlarrorlshiirg  Sav.  Inst.  v.  Chinn. 

7  Busli.  (Ky.)  53!) 410 


e  to  pages.] 

Harrow  v.  Farrow,  7  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)    126,  45  Am.  Deo.  60.. 

395,  39(1.  405.  409,     499 
Harrv.  The.  9  Ben.  524,  11  Fed. 

Cas.    Xo.   6.147    341 

v.  Hilton,  64  How.  Br.    (X. 
Y.)     199,    11    Abb.    N. 

Cas.  448   462,     463 

Harshev  v.  Blackmarr,  20  Iowa 
101,  89  Am.  Dec.  520  .  .4,  416, 
431,   440,   441,   443,   444,  440, 

447,     518 
Harshman    v.    Armstrong,    119 

Ind.   224,   21    X.   E.   022    1055 

Hart,  Re,  131  App.  Div.  661,  116 
N.   Y.   S.   193    ..    1187, 

1246,  1307 
V.   Frame,   6   CI.    &   F.   193, 

3  Jur.  547   547,     553 

V.  Hunter,  52  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

75,  114  S.W.  882.. 731,     740 
V.  Xew  York,  69  Hun  237, 
23    X.    Y.    S.    555,    af- 
firmed  139   X.  Y.   610, 

35  X.  E.  204 1043.  1075 

V.  Spalding,  1  Cal.  213 479 

v.  State.  120  Ind.  83,  21  N. 

E.    654,    24    N.    E.    151.. 673 

V.  Thompson.  15  La.  88 197 

V.  Vidal.  0  Cal.  50  ....  932,     938 
Harter  v.   Morris,   18   Ohio   St. 

492    549,  553,     589 

Hartford  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Reynolds, 

30    Mich.    502    205,     224 

Ilartgraves  v.  State,  5  Okla. 
Crim.  266.  Ann.  Cas.  1912D 
180.   114   Bac.   343,   33   L.R.A. 

(X.S.)    568    1102 

Hartman  Steel  Co.  v.  Hoag,  104 

Iowa  209,  73  X.  W.  611    393 

Ilartness    v.    Brown,    21    Wasli. 

655.  50  Bac.  491 158,  ISO, 

]96,     215 
Hartuiig  v.  Shaw,  130  Mich.  177, 

89   X.   W.   701    118,   121, 

122,     533 
Hartwell    v.    De   Vault.   15!)    III. 

325,  42  X.  E.  789    848 

Harvey,  Ke,  14  Biiila.  (Pa.)  287, 

38  Leg.  Int.  204   .  .   012,      020 
Re,  27   Beav.    (  Kng.)    330.  .      til, 3 
v.     Croyden     Uuion     Rural 
Sanitary  .Vudiuritv,  2() 

Ch.  D.  24!)    ".  .  .  .      403 

v.  Fink.  Ill   Ind.  249.  12  X. 

E.  390    531 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXIX 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Harvey  v.  Tliorpe,  28  Ala.  250, 

65  Am.  Dee.  344 48G 

Harvin    v.    Blackman,    108    La. 

426,  32  So.  452   478 

Harwood  v.  La  Grange,  137  N. 
Y.  538,  32  N.  K.  1000,  revers- 
ing 62  Hun  610  mem.,  16  N. 
Y.   S.   680    ..    710,    772.   981,     083 
Haselton   v.    Florentine    ]\Iarble 

Co.,  94  Fed.  701 367 

Haskell,  Re,  150  App.  Div.  837, 

135    N.   Y.    249    1280,   1322 

Haskin.  Re,  18  Hun   (N.  Y.)   43     614 
Hassell  v.  Van  Houten,  39  N.  J. 

Eq.    105     729 

Hast  V.  Piedmont  &  C.   R.   Co., 

52  W.  Va.  3D6,  44  S.  E.  155     478 
Hastings,  Re,  4  Am.  L.  Rev.  173, 
11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,199 

1196,  1199 
V.   Halleck,    13    Cal.    203.. 

551.  555,  585,     587 
V.  Lusk,  22  Wend.   (N.  Y.) 
410,    34    Am.   Dec.    330 

119,     121 
Hatch  V.  Ferguson.  57  Fed.  966,     443 
V.  Fogertv,  40  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  492,  10  Abb.  Pr.  N. 
S.    147,    33    Super.    Ct. 

166 293,  294.  308, 

315,  5.52,     553 
V.  Hatch,  9  Yes.  Jr.   (Eng.) 

292 288 

V.  Lewis,  2  F.  &  F.   (Eng.) 
467,  7  H.  &  N.  367,  7 

Jur.  N.  S.  1085    565 

V.  Smith,  5  Mass.  42 354 

Hatcher   v.    Faison,    142    N.    C. 

364.  55  S.   C.  284.. 44,     445 
Hatfield   v.   Clienowith,   24   Ind. 

App.  343,  56  N.  E.  51    . .   860,     953 
Hathawav  v.  Bradv,  26  Cal.  581     530 
V.  Patterson,  45  Cal.  204..    1054 
Hatnett  v.  Carvey,  66  N.  Y.  641     936 
Hatton    V.    Robinson,    14    Pick. 
(Mass.)     416,    25    Am.     Dec. 
415   .  .159,  162,  172,  180,  187, 

193,  200,     205 
Hatzfield    V.    Gulden,    7    Watts 

(Pa.)   152,  31  Am.  Dec.  750..      753 
Haugiiian    v.    Coulan,    86    App. 
Div.  290,  83  N.  Y.  S.  830.. 

289,     290 
Haulenbeek     v.     ]\IcGibbon,     60 
Hun  26,  20  Civ.  Pro.  406.  14 
N.   Y.   S.    393    178,     197 


Hausenfrats    v.    Graves,    Col.    & 

C.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)   101   47& 

Ilauser  v.  Herzog,  141  App.  Div. 

522,  126  N.  Y.  337 539 

Hauss   v.  Xiblack,   80   Ind.  407 

701,   960,     961 
Ilauxhurst  v.  Hovey,  26  Vt.  544     608 
Havana  City  R.  Co.  v.  Ceballos, 
25  Misc.  (360,  56  N.  Y.  S.  360 

218,     432: 
Havertv    v.    Haverty,    35    Kan. 
438,  'll  Pac.  364    .  .    383,  514, 

548,  552,   1171 
Hawes  v.  State,  88  Ala.  37,  7  So. 

302 178 

Hawk  V.  Anient.  28  III.  App.  390  1052 
v.  Evans,  76  la.  593,  41  N. 
W.  368,  14  Am.  St.  Rep. 

247  533 

Hawke,  Re,  148  App.  Div.  326. 
133  N.  Y.  23,  affirmed  204  N. 

Y.  671,  98  N.  E.  1097   726 

Hawkes  v.  Cottrell,   3   H.  &  N. 
(Eng.)    243,   27    L.    J.    Exch. 

360   242 

Hawkins,  Re  (Del.)  87  Atl.  243 

1335,  1337,  1338 
v.  Averv,  32  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

551  361,  362 

V.  Harwood,  4  Exch.  (Eng.) 

503,  7   Dowl.  &   L.   181     56& 

v.  Lovless,  39  Ga.  5 804, 

1040,   1049 

V.  Smith,  56  Ga.  571 623 

v.  Walker,  4  Yerg.    (Tenn. ) 

188    588,     605- 

Hawley  v.  Bennett,  4  Paige   (N. 

Y.)    163    629 

V.  Cramer,  4  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

717 284,  293,  206, 

303,     30T 
V.  Howell,  60  la.  79.  14  N. 

W.  199   774,     775. 

Hay  v.  Cole,  11  B.  Mon.    (Kv.) 

70 231,  250,     495 

v.    Lehman,    28    Misc.    575, 

59   N.   Y.   S.   687    900 

Hayden   v.   McDermott,   9   Abb. 

Pr.    (N.  Y.)    14    1056 

Hayes,  Ex  p.,  92  Ala.  120,  9  So. 

156   479 

v.  Carr,  12  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

584 1056 

V.  Cuny,  9  Mart.  ( La. )   87 .  .      426^ 
V.  Koepfli,  46  Wasli.  43,  89 

Pac.  151    501 


ex  XX 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Hayes  v.  O'Connell.  9  Ala.  588     357 

V.  Sliattuck.  21  Cal.  51 415 

Haygood  v.  Dannenberg  Co.,  102 
Ga.   24,    29    8.    E.   203 

992,  1029 
V.  Haden,   119   Ga.  463,  46 

S.  E.  625 613,     829 

V.   McKenzie,   119   La.   466, 

46  S.  E.  624    608 

Havmond,  Re,  121  Cal.  385,  53 

Pac.  899 1259,  1261,  1309 

Hayne  v.   Rhodes,  8  Q.   B.   342, 

55  E.  C.  L.  342,  10  Jur.  71 .  .      559 
Hayner  v.  People,  213   111.   142, 

72  X.  E.  792 1106,  1107, 

1108,  1111,  1122,  1123 
Haynes  v.  Gay,  37  Wash.  230,  79 

Pac'  794    270 

V.  Perrv,  76  Ga.  33    .  .    997, 

1073.  1075 
V.   Taconia.   etc.,   R.   Co.,   7 

Wash.  211,  34  Pac.  922     353 
V.  Wriglit,  4  Hayw.  (Tenn.) 

63 490 

Hayney     v.     Coyne,     10     Heisk 

(Tenn.)   339  .' 670 

Hays  V.  Cassell,  70  111.  669 360 

V.    Dalton,    5    Lea    (Tenn.) 

555   984 

V.   Ewing,    70   Cal.   127,    11 

Pac.  602    588 

V.   Hays,    5    Idaho   154,    47 

Pac.  732    1096 

V.  Hynds,  28  Ind.  531.. 347     349 
V.  Johnson,  99  S.  W.  332,  30 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  614  .  .  781, 

785,  788,     934 
V.  Merkle,  70  Mo.  App.  509     375 
V.  Rush,   8  Ohio  Dec.    (R<'- 
print)    50,    5    Cine.    L. 

Bui.  328   128,     130 

Hayter.  Ex  p.,  16  Cal.  App.  211. 

116  Pac.   370    1115,  1127 

Hayward    v.    (ioldsburg,    63    la. 

436,  19  N.  W.  307 267,     522 

Haywood  v.  State,  114  Ga.  Ill, 

3!)  S.  ]•;.  948   196 

Hazclrigg    v.    Brcnton.    2    Duv. 

( Ky. )    525    523 

Hazcltini'  y.  Brockway.  2(i  ('  i|,). 
291,  57  Pac.  '1077.  .72S. 

761.   SO!).    ,S7ll.      942 
V.   Kccnaii,   5  1   W.    \'ii.    60. 1, 
l(i   S.    i;.   (ii)!l.    102    Aril. 
St.     ilcp.    '.)r,:\     .  .     973. 

990,  loot;,    1031 


are  to  pages.] 

Ilazeltine  y.  Malion,  8  Kan.  App. 

857  mem.,  55  Pac.  467     864 
Hazel  ton    y.    Le    Uue,    10    App. 

Ca.s.   (D.  C.)   379   375,     377 

Hazolett  y.  Gill,  5  Robt.  (N.  Y.) 

611    254,     262 

Head      y.      Geryais.      1      Walk. 
(Miss.)     431,    12    Am. 

Dec.  577    497 

y.  Hargrave,  105  U.  S.  45, 
26  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    1028 

936,   937,   938,     941 
Headley   y.   Good,   24   Tex.   232 

454,  769,  802,     804 
Healey,  Re,  53  Vt.  694,  38  Am. 

Dec.  713  and  notes  page  717       10 
Healy,  Re,  137  Cal.  474  70  Pac. 

45,5   311 

Heard  y.  Lodge,  20  Pick.  (Mass.) 

53,  32  Am.  Dec.  197 364, 

367,  475,  503 
Hearn  y.  Hearn,  24  R.  I.  328, 

53  Atl.  95  685 

y.  McNeil,   32  Noya   Scotia 

210 709 

Heartt    y.    Chipman,    2    Aikens 

(Vt.)   162 11,  988,  989, 

995,  1052.  1053.  1062 
Heath.  Re.  83  la.  215.  48  X.  W. 

1037  404.  512 

y.   Bates,   49   Conn.   342,  44 

Am.  Rep.  234 545 

y.  Com.,   129   Ky.   835,    113 
S.  W.   69..'.  .383,   391, 

396,     409 

y.  Taylor.  2  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)     121    265 

Heaton   y.   Findlay,    12   Pa.   St. 

304    ". 208 

Ilcaycnich  y.  Alpena  Circuit 
.ludg.'.  Ill  :MiclK  163,  69  X. 
W.  226,  3  Detroit  Log.  X.  641 

983,  1049,  1075 
Hebbard  y.  Hau<>liian,  70  X.  Y. 

54    '. 170 

Heblich    y.    Slater,    217    Pa.    St. 

404,  (i()  Atl.  655 702,  788, 

790,    921.    922,    924.    925,    92S, 

931,     932 
lied  ley    y.    Baiiibridgc,    3    Q.    B. 
.-no',  43  E.  C.  L.  752.  2  Gale  & 

1).    4S3    ;)23,     521 

llcdrick    V.    Beclcr,    110    Mo.   91, 

19    S.    W.    492 267 

li.llr]iii;m    V.    I?iirt,    7    la.    320, 

71    Am.  Dec.  445..  ..229.  377,     480 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXl 


[References 

HefTner   v.    Wise,    51    La.    Ann. 

1037,  20  So.  4] 5 524,     55G 

Heli'ren   v.   Jayne,   o'J    Jnd.   4i;:i, 

13  Am.  Kep.   281 15,  U1.5, 

121)(5,    1302,    1324,  1328 
Heffron  v.  Flower,  35  111.  App. 

200    30/,     313 

V.  Gage,  149  111.  182,  30  N. 

E.  509   772,     774 

Heft's    Estate,    9    Kulp.     (Pa.) 

337     847 

Heiberger    v.    Worthington,    23 
App.   Cas.    (D.  C.)    565.-738, 

880,     918 
Heilbroner  v.  Douglass,  32  Tex. 

215     515 

Heister     v.     Davis,     3     Yeates. 

(Pa.)    4    159,     195 

Heiter  v.  Joliue,  135  App.  Div. 

13,  119  N.  Y.  S.  819 370 

Hektograph    Co.    v.    Eourl,    1 1 

Eed.  844    1005,  lOOU,  1051 

Helbig  V.  Citizens  Ins.  Co.,   108 

111.  App.  624    181 

Helena  Steam-Heating,  etc.,  Co. 
V.    Wells,    16    Mont.    05,    40 

Pac.  78    854 

Heifer  v.  Spunner,  147  111.  App. 

448     383,     399 

Heller  v.  Kalisch,  141  App.  Div. 

205,  125  N.  Y.  S.    1057     780 
V.  Waller,    2    Kulp     (Pa.) 

334     241 

Hellier  v.  Russell,  130  Cal.  143, 

68  Pac.  581   774,     776 

Hellman  v.  McWhennie,  3  Rich. 

L.  (S.  C.)  304.  .422,  426,  428,  430 
Helmprecht  v.   Bowen,    87    Hun 

302,  34  N.  Y.  S.  1141 144 

Helms    v.    Goodwill,    04    N.    Y. 

642,  reversing  2  Hun  410..  277 
Helwig  Re,  5   S.  D.  272,  58  X. 

W.  674    66 

Hemingray  v.  Hemingrav,  96  8. 

W.  574,  29  Ky.  L.  Rep.  879  848 
Hemphill  v.  Hemphill,  34  Miss. 

69    416 

Hempkin  v.  Bowmar,  16  La.  363 

416 
Hempstead     v.    New     York,    86 
App.  Div.  300,  83  N.  Y.  S.  806 

781,  784,     790 
Hench    v.    State,    72    Ind.    297 

1090,    1097 
Henchey  v.  Chicago,  41   HI.  130 

804.  1015,  1040 


are  to  pages.] 

llenck   V.   Todliunter,   7   liar.  & 
J.     (Aid.)     275,    10    Am.    Dec. 

300 242,    414,    410,    422,     487 

Henderson,  Ex  p.,  84  Ala.  30,  4 

So.  284  151 

Re,  140  App.  Div.  944,  131 

N.  Y.  S.  544 1221,  1225 

Re,  88  Tenu.  531,  13  S.  W. 

413  1180,  1241 

V.  Broomhead,  4  H.  &  Isi. 
(Eng.)  509,  5  Jur.  N. 
S.  1175,  28  L.  J.  Exch. 

360,  7  \V.  R.  495 535 

V.  Commercial  Advertiser 
Assoc,  46  Hun  504,  12 
N,  Y.  St.  Rep.  649,  111 
N.  Y.  685,  19  N.  E.  286  134 
V.  Eckern,  115  Minn.  410, 
Ann.    Cas.    191 2D    989, 

132  N.  W.  715 433 

V.  Kibbie,   211   111.  556,   71 

N.  E.  1091   685 

V.  McGruder,  49  Ind.  App. 
082,  98  N.  E.  137.. 637, 

640,     641 
V.  McMahon,  12  U.  C.  Q.  B. 

288    538 

V.  Planters'  &  Merchants' 
Bank,  59  So.  493.  .361, 

391,     395 

V.  State,  96  Ind.  437  1160 

V.  Terry,  62  Tex.  281..  194, 

209,     435 
Henderson's    Appeal,    4    Penny. 

(Pa.)    229     503 

Hendrick  v.  Biggar,  66  Misc. 

576,  122  N.  Y.  S.  162  428 
V.  Posev,  104  Ky.  8,  45  S. 
W."  525,  46  S.  W.  702, 
20  Kv.  L.  Rep.  359 
1021,  1148,  1151,  1206,  1223 
Hendrickson  v.  Hendrickson,  15 

N.  J.  L.  102  518 

Hendrix    v,    Cawthorn,    71    Ga. 

742      466 

V.  Fuller,  7  Kan.  331.. 416,     466 

V.  Wright,  50  Mo.  311 603 

Hendryx  v.  State,  130  Ind.  205. 

29  N.  E.  1131   145,     146 

Hendry  v.  Benli.sa.  37  Fla.  009. 
20  So.  800,  34  L.R.A.  283 

371.  504 
Henke  v.  Gunzenhauser,  195  111. 

130,  62  N.  E.  890 775 

Hennen  v.  Bourgeat,  12  Rob. 

(La.)  522  948 


CXXXll 


TABLE    OK    CASES. 


[References  ar 

Hennessey  v.  Farrellv,  23  Dalv. 

(N.    Y.)    468    ■ .".      337 

Henrietta  Nat.  Bank  v.  ijairett, 

(Tex.)    25  S.  W.  45G 960 

Henrv  Re,  15  Idaho  755,  99  Pac. 

10.54,     21     L.R.A.(N.S.)     207   1269 
Henrv    v.    Bassett,    75    Mo.    89 

827,  828,     831 
V.  Bassett,     22     Mo.     App. 

667    830 

V.  Blackburn,   32   Ark.   445     147 
V.  Boedker,    (Tex.)    141    S. 

W.  811  838 

V.  Buddecke,    81    Mo.    App. 

360   158 

V.  Derby,  53  Super.  Ct.  (N. 

Y.)    125   270 

V.  Fowler,  3  Daly    (N.  Y.) 

199    973,  1037 

V.  Hilliard,  120  N.   C.  479, 

27   S.  E.  130    481 

V.  Nubert,  35  S.  W.  444 .  .   176 
V.  Eaiman,  25  Pa.  St.  354, 
64  Am.  Dec.  703.. 274, 

285,  293,  299,  304,  305 
V.  Seager,  80  111.  App.  172  562 
V.  State,  87  Miss.  1,  98,  39 

So.  856 1146,  1157,  1160 

V.  Traynor,  42  Minn.  234, 

44  N.  W.  11  98G 

V.  Vance,  111  Kv.  72,  63  S. 
W.  273,  23  kv.  L.  Rep. 

491  237,  "239,  254, 

261,  745,  792,  793,  796, 

798,  807,  870,  876,  949 
Henry,  etc.  Co.  v.  Halter,  58 

Neb.  685,  79  N.  W.  616 497 

Henshaw  v.  Miller,  17  How.  212, 

15  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   222    591 

Hentig  v.  Benevolent  Ass'n,  45 

Kan.  462,  25  Pac.  878 1084 

Hen  van   v.  Trevino,    (Tex.)    137 

S.'  \V.  458    280,     303 

Herbert    v.    Alexander,    2    Call 

(Va.)    498    35(i,     4S0 

V.  Lawrence,    21    Civ.    I'lo. 
336,    18    N.    Y.    S.    95 

242.     445 
Herbstreit  V.  lieckwitli,  35  Midi. 

95    679 

nerrnaii    I{c,    50    Fed.    517.  .240 

254,   255.     2(12 
V.   .M.fropf)lilan   St.  R.  Co., 

121     Fed.    184 740. 

745,    8S8,    1075,  1085 


e  to  pages.] 

Herman   v.   New   York   City   R. 
Co.,  122  App.  Div.  469, 

106  N.  Y    S.  89G    454 

V.  Schlesinger,      114      Wis. 
382,  90   N.  W.  460,  91 

Am.    St.    Rep.    922 

164,  186,  189,  209,  220,     222 
Hern     v.     Howard,     1     VV.     Bl. 

(Eng.)   231    114 

Hernandez  v.  Dart,  109  La.  880, 

33  So.  905    596 

V.  State,  18  Tex.  App.  134, 
51  Am.  Rep.  295  ..  172, 

178,   199,     201 
Hcrndon  v.  Lammers,   (Tex.)   55 

S.   VV.  414    712,  771,  782, 

942,   951,  955,   960,     964 
Ilerpolsbeimer   v.   Citizens'   Ins. 
Co.,   79  Neb.  685,   113   N.  W. 

152    222,  224,     227 

Herr  v.  Pavson,  157  111.  244,  41 

N.  E.  732 298,  302,  306 

Herrell       v.       Prince       William 
Countv.    113    Va.    594,    75    S. 

E.    87^ 375,     438 

Herrick  v.  Catley,   30   How   Pr. 
(N.    Y.)     208,    1    Dalv 

512    308.  300,  310,     318 

v.  Lvnch,    150    111.    283,    37 
N.  E.  221,  affirming  49 

111.  App.   657    280,     288 

Herriman   v.    Sliomon,    24    Kan. 

387,  36  Am.  Rep.  261 391,     393 

Herrin  v.  Abbe,  55  Fla.  769,  46 

So.  183,  IS  L.R.A.(x\.S.)   907     1P5 
Herring  Re,   10  Kulp    (Pa.)    74  1125 

v.   Pollev,  8  Mass.   113 378 

v.  State^,    (Tex.)    42   S.   W. 

301      155 

Ilerrington  v.  McCollum,  73  111. 

476     270 

v.  Santa   Clara   County,  44 

Cal.    496    1118 

Ilorrn  v.  Sluup  Countv,  81  Ark. 

33,  98   S.   W.  704    ." 1124 

Ilerron      v.     Bullitt,     3     Snecd 

(Tenn.)     497     570 

ilersey    Re,    171    Fed.    1004,    22 

Am".  Bankr.  Rep.  863 821,     822 

Kersbv  V.  Duval,  47  Ark.  8(),  14 

S.    \\".   .169    1026,    1027,  1081 

ilersh'b    V.    Moss,    28    Ind.    354 

235,   889,     903 
I  lei'wig's     Su('C(>ssion,     127     La. 

127,   5.3    So.   4(i(i    S43,     947 

He.ss  V.  Allen,  21   Misc.  393,  53 

N.    Y.  S.  413    682 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CXXXlll 


[References 

Hess  V.  Cole,  23  X.  J.  L.  31 6..      424 
V.  Finck,     IXi     App.     Div. 
654,   118   N.   Y.   S.   171 

610,  612 
V.  Joseph,  7  Robt.    (N.  Y.) 

GO!)     614,     617 

V.  McKee,  150  la.  40!),  130 

N.   W.  375    534 

V.  Oregon    German    Baking 
Co.,    31    Ore.    503,    4!) 

Pac.  803    637,  643, 

044,  646 
V.  Voss,  52  111.  472.  . .  .298,  302 
V.  \Yebb,  (Tex.)  113  S.  W. 

618  426,  428 

Heslop  V.  Metcalfe,  3  Mvl.  &  C. 

(Eng.)    183    '.  ..974,  1087 

Hessin   v.   Heck,   88   Ind.   449..      585 
Hester  v.  Park,  etc.,  Com'rs,  84 

Mich.  450,  47  N.  W.  1097 16 

Hetherington  v.  Sterrv,  28  Kan. 

426,   42   Am.   Rep.  'l  09 137 

Hetrick  v.  Smitli,  67  \Yasli.  664, 

122  Pac.  363    274 

Hett  V.  Pun  Pong,  18  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  290 577 

Hewes  v.  Erie,  etc.,  Transp.  Co., 

31   Pa.  Co.   Ct.  75 710 

Hewitt  V.  Darlington  Phospliate 
Co.,  43  S.  C.  5,  20  S.  E. 

804    390,    397,     407 

V.  Dean,  91  Cal.  5,  27  Pac. 

423    776 

Hewlett  V.    Crucbley,   5   Taunt. 
(Eng.)    277,   1   E.   C.   L.   107 

641,     648 
Hey  V.  Simon,  93  S.  W.  50,  29 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  315   510,     569 

Heyers    v.    Denning,    Col    &    C. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    75? 537 

Hevfron,  Ex  p.,  7  How.   (Miss.) 

127    1296 

Hevman  v.  Beringer,  1  Abb.  N. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    315    368,     393 

Hevman   Re.    156   App.  Div.  73, 

140  N.  Y.  S.  1065.  .1241,  1259,  1260 
Heyward  v.  Maynard,  119  App. 
Div.    66,    103 'N.    Y.    S.    1028 

1036,  1038 
Hevwood    V.    Doernbeclier    Mfg. 
Co.,  48  Ore.  359,  86  Pac.  357, 

87  Pac.  530 477 

Hickev  v.  Stringer,  3  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  45,  21  S.  W.  716 387, 

408,     459 
Hickmnn    v.    Berens,    [1895]    2 
Ch.  638    403 


are  to  pages.] 

Hickox  v.  Eels,  86  III.  App.  216     242 
V.  Weaver,  15  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

375      257 

Hicks  Re,  47  liun  637  mem.,  14 

X.  Y^  St.  Rep.  320 185 

V.  Blanchard,    60    Vt.    673, 

15  Atl.  401    155,     198 

V.  Brantlev,    102    Ca.    264, 

29  S."e.  459  634,  649 

V.  Chouteau,  12  Mo.  341 .  .   128 
V.  Drew,  117  Cal.  305,  49 

Pac.  189  311 

V.  Foster,  13  Barb.   (N.  Y.) 

663    850 

V.  Naomi    Falls    Mfg.    Co., 
138  N.  C.  319,  50  S.  E. 

703    343,  344,     345 

V.  Sharp,  4  La.  335    394 

Hidalgo  County  Drainage  Dist. 
iS'o.    1   V.   Swearingen,    (Tex.) 

58  S.  W.  211    912 

Hiersche  v.   Scott,    1    Neb.    (un- 
official )  Rep.  48,  95  N.  W.  494     648 
Higbee    v.    Dresser,    103    Mass. 

523     203,     215 

V.  Spangler,  127  Mo.  Ap]). 
220,  104  S.  W.  1143, 

434,  450 
Higgins  Re,  156  Cal.  257,  104 

Pac.  6  157 

V.  Mansfield,  62  Ala.  267..      858 
V.  Matlock,     (Tex.)     95    S. 

W.  571    881,     943 

V.  Russo,  72   Conn.  238,  43 
Atl.   1050,   77  Am.   St. 

Rep.  308    526 

High  V.  Emerson,  23  Wash.  103, 

62  Pac.  455    .  .  .399.  404.     408 

Hightower  v.  Hawthorn,  Hempst 
42,    12    Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,478b 

27,     414 
Higley  v.  White,   102  Ala.  604, 

15  So.  141 977,  989.  1022, 

1024,   1029,   10.33.     1081 
Hilary    v.    Minneapolis    St.    R. 
Co.^  104  Minn.  432,  116  N.  W. 

933     157,     172 

Hildreth    v.    Harvey    3    Johns. 

Cas.    (N.  Y^)    300    265 

V.  Williams,   (Cal.)  33  Pac. 

1113    777 

Hiles  V.  Mosher,  44  Wis.  601 .  .      562 

Hill.  Ex  p..  7  T.  R.   (Eng.)    452       62 

Ex  p..  2  W.  Bl.    (Eng.)   991   1250 


CXXXIV 


TABT.E    OF    CASES. 


[Keforeiices 

Hill,  Ee,  L    R.  3  Q.  13.    (Eng.) 

543,  9  B.  &  S.  481,  37 

L.  J.  Q.  13.  295,  18  L. 

T.N.  S.  564 1221, 

1227,  1259,  12GS 
V.  Allen,  2  M.  &  W.  (Eiig.) 

284     945 

V.  Barlow,     6    Rob.     (La.) 

142      353 

V.  Barney,  18  N.  H.  607..      516 
V.  Bowver,  18  Gratt.  (Va.) 

364   397,  411,     499 

V.  Brinklev,   10   Ind.    102..      977 
V.  Butler   County,   195    Mo. 

511.  94  S.  W.  518   ....    1114 
V.  Cassidy,  24  Mont.  108,  60 

Pac.  811    854 

V.  Childress,        10        Yerg. 

(Tenn.)   515,  539.  .891,     903 
V.  Coburn,  105  Me.  437,  75 

Atl.  67  293 

V.  Cunningham,  25  Tex.  25, 

793,   794,     810 
V.  Featherstonhaugh,  7 

Bing.  569,  20  E.  C.  L. 

244     945 

V.  Finney,  4  F.  &  F.  (Eng.) 

616     550,     563 

V.  Hall,   191  Mass.  253,   77 

N.  E.  831.... 275,  278, 

283,     284 
V.   Hill    (Tenn.)    62    S.   W. 

209    1026 

V.  Lambert,    Minor     (Ala.) 

91    492 

V.  Leland,   10   Ky.   L.   Rep. 

2S0    912 

V.  Mendenhall,      21      Wall. 

453,  22  U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

616     415,    442,     447 

V.  Montgomery,  84  111.  App. 

.300,    affirmed    184    111. 

220,  56  N.  E.  320. .557, 

582,     590 
▼.  Mynatt     (Tenn.)     59    S. 

\V.  163    554,     558 

V.  Palm,  3S  Mo.  13 641,     643 

T.  Penn.    Mut.    L.    Ins.    Co. 

120   Ky.  190,  85  S.  W. 

759,    27     Kv.    L.    Rep. 

567    ". 450 

V.  Ward.    13   .Ma.  310    626 

nillborn  V.  U.  S.,  27  Ct.  CI.  547    1136 
Hill  Co..   Pc     159   Fed.  73,  86   ('. 
C.  A.  263,  20  .\in.  I'.anUr.  Rep. 
73    820 


are  to  pages.] 

Hillehrandt,    He.    33    App.    Div. 

191,  53  ^.  Y.  S    352 614 

Ilillegass  v.  Bender,  78  Ind.  225 

250,    552,   553,     592 
Hiller    v.    Ivy,     37     Miss.    431, 

362,   364,     367 
Hilliard,  Re,  9  Jur.  (Eng.)   664, 

2  Dowl.  &  L.  919 615 

V.  Carr,  6  Ala.  557  . .  .  .419, 

721,   894 
Hillman   v.   Hillman,   42    Wash. 
595,  85  Pac.  61,  114  Am.  St. 

Rep.  135 1031,  1041 

Hilton  V.  Crooker,  30  Neb.  707, 

47  N.  W.  3.. 371,  372,     965 

V.  Woods,     L.     R.     4     Eq. 

(Eng.)    432,    36    L.   J. 

Ch.  491,  16  L.  T.  N.  S. 

736,    15    W.    R.    1105 

670,    684,    729 

Himes  v.  Herr,  3  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

124,  39  W.  N.  C.  568 375,     37r> 

Hinckley    v.    Krug     (Cal.)     34 

Pac.    118    552,    556,    557, 

586,  589,  945,  946,  1231 
Hindman     v.     Mackall,     3     GI. 

Greene    (la.)    170   446 

Hines  v.  Brunswick  &  A.  R.  Co., 

50  Ga.  563   927 

V.  Stephens,    90    Ark.    518, 

119  S.  W.  664 377,     439 

Hinkle  v.  Wanzer,  17  How.  353, 

15  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)   173 363 

Hinklcy    v.    St.    Anthony    Falls 
Water  Power  Co.,  9  Minn.  55 

250,     258 
Hinman  v.  Devlin,  40  App.  Div. 

234,  57  N.  Y.  S.  1037.  .  .  .202,     973 
Hinsdale   County  v.   Crump,    18 
Colo.    App.    59,    70    Pac.    159 

1101,  1125 
Hinson  v.  Gamble.  65  Ala.  605,   1024 
Hippisley,    cited    in    Meekins    v. 
Smith",    Re,    1    H.    Bl.    (Eng.) 

636   115 

Hippler    v.    Quandt.     145    Wis. 

221,  129  N.  W.  1099 646 

Hirsch  v.  Feeney,  83  111.  548.  .  .  .      650 
V.  Fleming,    77    (ia.    594,    3 

S.  E.  9.  .401,  415,  425,     444 
V.  Beverly,  125  Ga.  657.  54 

S.  K.  678    387.     409' 

V.   Fisher.  138  Mich.  95.  101 

N.  W.  48 379. 

416,420,     425 
Ilirshbach.  Re,  72  App.  Div    79, 

96  M.  Y,  S.  117 614,  1255 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cxxxv 


[Rcferciict'S 

Hirshback   v.   Ketelium,   5   .A  pp. 
Div.   324,    3'J    N.    Y.    S. 

291    G82,  OS.-!,   ]255 

V.  Ketcliuin,    79    App.    Div. 

51)1,    80   N.    Y.    S.    14;;  1255 
V.  Ketelium,    84    App.    Div. 
258,   82   N.   Y.   S,   739, 
altirmiiig  40  Misc.  300, 

81  N.  Y.  S.  957   1255 

Hirshfeld  v.  Bopp,  5  App.  Div. 

202,  39  X.  Y.  S.  24 250 

Hirslifield  v.  Landman,  3  E.  D. 

Smith   (N.  Y\)   208.  .422,  424,     431 
Hirst,  Re,  9  Pliila.  (Pa.)  210,  M 
Leg.  Int.  340,  1  W.  N.  C.  18 

1169,    1242,    12C5,  1270 
Hitchcock,   Re,    17    Am.    Bankr. 

Rep.  604    824 

Hitchcock   V.    Barlow,   2   Wend. 

(X.   Y.)    029    10 

V.  Davis,   87   Mich.  029,  49 

N.  W.  912    955 

V.  Egerton,  8  Vt.  202    530 

V.  McGehee,  7  Port.    (Ala.) 

550    371,  379,     380 

V.  Merrick,     15     Wis.     522 

774,    784 
Hitchings,    Re,    157    App.    Div. 
392,   142   X.   Y.   S.   339 

010.  013,     014 
V.  Van  Brunt,  5  Abb.  Pr.  X. 
S.  (N.  Y.)  272..  ..720, 

745,     915 
V.  Van  Brunt.  38  X.  Y.  335, 

274,     729 
Kite    V.    Keene,    149    Wis.    207, 
Ann.    Cas.    191 3D    251, 
134  X.  W.  383,  135  X. 

W.  354 334 

V.  State,    9    Yerg.     (Tenn.) 

198 1099 

V.  Wilson,     2     Hen.     &     M. 

(Va.)    208    411 

Hitner  v.  Sucklev,  2  ^\'ash.  405, 

12   Fed.   Cas.   Xo.   6,543    209 

Hittle   V.   Zeimer,   62   111.   App. 

170   501 

Hittson.  Re,  15  X.  M.  0,  99  Pac. 

089    1254 

V.  Browne,      3      Colo.     304 

25.  26.  104,  982,  1062 
Hoar  V.  Tilden,   178  Mass.   157, 

59    X.    E.    641     175 

V.  Wood,    3    Met.     (Mass.) 

193    118.   120.   121,     122 

Hobart  v.  Vail.  80  Vt.   152.  00 

Atl.  820    312,     314 


are  to  pages.] 

llobbs,  Re,  75  X.  H.  285,  73  Atl. 
303   .  .1187,  1257,  1264, 

1310,   1332 

V.  Duff,  43  Cal.  485 409 

V.  McLean,  117  U.  S.  567,  6 
S.  Ct.  870,  29  U.  S.  (L. 

ed.)    940    841,   844,     845 

Hobdav  v.  Peters,  28  Beav. 
(En'g.)    349,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  780, 

8  W.  R.  512    278,     303 

Ilobler,   Re,   8   Bea.  101 403,     48S 

Hobson  V.  Watson,  34  Me.  20,  50 

Am.  Dec.  032.. 804,  979,  990, 

998,    1030,    1033,    1030,    1040,  1072 

Hoby  V.  Built,  3  B.  &  Ad.  350, 

23  E.  C.  L.  91,  1  L.  J.  K.  B. 

121    243 

Hockenbury  v.  Carlisle,  5  W.  & 

S.    (Pa.)    348    293,     299 

Hocking  Valley  Coal  Co.  v. 
Roser,  53  Ohio  St.  12,  41  X. 
E.  203,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  022, 

29  L.R.A.  386 853 

Hodges  V.  Ory,  48  La.  Ann.  54, 

18    So.   899    1025 

Hodgins  v.  Heaney,  17  Minn.  45     370 
Hodgson  V.  Scarlett,  1  B.  &  Aid. 

(Eng.)  232 ^ 123 

Hodnett  v.  Bonner,  107  (ia.  452, 

33  S.  E.  416  1027 

Hodson  V.  Pare   [1899]    1   Q.  B. 

( Eng. )    455    53G 

Hoes  V.  Halsey,  2  Dem.   (X".  Y.) 

oil    874 

V.  Van  Alstyne,  20  111.  202 

330,     337 
Hoev  V.  Fletcher,  39  Fla.  325.  22 

So.  716 .  .      140 

Hoffecker,    Re,     (Del.)     (iO    Atl. 

981    1174.   1218.  1222 

Hoffenberth  v.   ^Muller.    12   Abb. 

Pr.  X.  S.    (X.  Y.)    221 511 

Hoffman  v.  Bay  Cir.  Judge,  113 
Mich.  109,  71  X.  W. 
480,  67  Am.  St.  Rep. 
458,  38  L.R.A.  663.  4 
Detroit     Leg.     X'^.     165 

116,     117 

V.  Cage,    31    Tex.   595    251 

V.  Rowlev,  13  Abb.  Pr.    (X. 

Y.)  *399     205 

V.  Smith,      61      Miss.     544 

847,   848,  1028 

V.  Vallejo.  45   Cal.  564 

734.  737,  750.  1025 
V.  Van    Xostrand,    14    Abb. 

Pr.   (X.  Y.)   330..  .259,     262 


CXXXVl 


TABLE  OF  CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Hoffmire    v.    Hoffmire,    3    Edw. 

(X.  Y.)    173 444 

llogan,  Ee,  3  Atk.   (Eng.)  813.  . 

131,     537 
V.  Hutton,  20  N.  J.  L.  82 .  .      358 
V.  State,  147  S.  W.  871.. .      132 
Hogate  V.  Edwards,  05  Ind.  372 

403,  709,  711,     900 
Hogg  V.  Dower,  36  W,  Va.  200, 

14  S.  E.  995 1024 

V.  Martin,  Riley  L.   (S.  C.) 

150    570,  577,     586 

V.  Pincknev,  l>i  S.  C.  388..      634 
V.  State,  40  Tex.  Crim.  109, 

48  S.  W.  580 1149 

Holandsworth  v.  Com.,  11  Biisli 

(Ky.)    617    128,     129 

Holbert  v.  Montgomery,  5  Dana 

(Ky.)    11 444,' 492,  493,     498 

Holbrook,   Re,   5   Cow.    (N.   Y.) 

35    355 

V.  Nesbitt,    163    Mass.    120, 

39  X.  E.  794 322 

Holden  v.   Lippert,  4  Ohio  Cir. 

Dec.  527   385,     387 

V.  State,  44  Tex.  Crim.  382, 

71  S.  W.  000 107,     109 

V,  Thompson  [1907]  2  K. 
B.   (Eng.)  489,  11  Ann. 

Cas.    68 674 

Holder  v.  State,  58  Ark.  473,  25 

S.  W.  279 1091,  1114 

V.  State,  35  Tex.  Crim.   19, 

29  S.  \V.  793 418,     432 

Holderness  v.   Baker,   44   X^.   II. 

414    348 

Holins,    Re,    197   N.   Y.   301,   90 

X.  E.  997    ]007 

Holker  v.  Parker,  7  Cranch,  430, 
3  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    396.... 383, 

400,  478,     489 
Holladay's  Case,  27  Fed.  830.  .  .      766 
Holland,  Re,  110  App.  Div.  799. 
97  X.  Y.  S.  202.. ..274, 

275.     283 
Re,  6  U.  C.  Q.  B.  0.  S.  441    1250 

V.  Isler,  77  X.  C.  1 lol 

V.  Sliceiian,  108  Minn.  302, 
17  Ann.  (as.  087,  122 
X.     W.     1.     23     J..R..\. 

(X.S.)    510    758 

ITolIiind   TruKt  (  <-..   Kr.   7ti    Hun 
:;:::;.  27  .\.  V.  S.  (;87.  .  . 

01  !     11211,   s:i,s,   S:!!i.    1018 
V.   IlogMn,       03       Mini       O'l  1 

mem.,    17    N.    \.   S.  91!)     304 


Hollenback  v.  Todd,  119  111.543, 

8   X.   E.   829 LSO,     215 

Hollenbeck    v.    Detrick,    102    111. 

388,  44  X.  E.  732.  .132,     133 
V.  Glover,  128  Ga.  52,  57  S. 

E.   108    490 

V.  Stanberry,  38  la.  325.  .  .      599 
Holley  V.  ioung,  08  Me.  215,  28 

Am.   Rep.   40    348 

Holliday  v.  Holliday,    123    Cal. 

26,  55  Pac.  703 039 

V.  Holliday,    (Cal.)   53  Pac. 

42    644 

V.  Thomas,  90   Ind.   398 .  .  .      393 
Hollinger    v.    Reeme,    138    Ind. 
372,  30  X.  E.  1114,  40  Am.  St. 
Rep.  402,  24  L.R.A.  40.  .  .439,     440 
Hollins,   Re,   197   X.   Y.  361,  90 

X.  E.  997 1037 

V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
57  Hun  139,  25  Abb. 
X.  Cas.  93,  11  X.  Y.  S. 

27   424,  425,     436 

Hollis  V.  Meux,  69  Cal.  025,  11 
Pac.  248,  58  Am.  Rep.  574 ..  . 

118,  121,  122,     536 
Holloway  v.  Appleget,  55  X.  J. 
Eq.     583,    40    Atl.    27, 
62  Am.  St.  Rep.  827 .  . 

723,  958,     960 

V.  Lowe,  1  Ala.  246 676,     760 

Holly    Springs    v.    Manning,    55 

Miss.  380 787,  789,  790, 

870,  910,  921,  924,     925 
Holm  V.   Parmele-Eccleston  Co., 
13  Misc.  317,  34  X.  Y.  S.  458 

887,     942 
Ilolman,     Re,    42     Ore.   345,    70 

Pac.   908 274,   289,     290 

v.  Kimball,    22    Vt.    555...      173 
V.  Loynes,  4  DeG.  M.  &  G. 

('Eng.)   270  293 

V.  Loynes,    IS    Jur.    (Eng.) 

839    \  .      283 

Holmes,  Re,  3  Giff.    (Eng.)    337     273 
V.  Barbin,   15  La.  Ann.  553     155 
V.  Bell.   139  App.   Div.  455, 
124    X.    Y.    S.    301,    af- 
firmed  200   X.   Y.   580, 

91    X.   E.    1094 872,     991 

V.    I'.looniinLjdule,     72     Apf). 
Di\-.    027,    70    X.    Y.    S. 

1S2    184 

V.   (  iihci',  S!)   Kan.  0!)S,    l;!3 

Pac.    104    277 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXVll 


[References  arc  to  pages.] 


Holmes  v.  Evans,  11^  X  Y.  ]40, 
29  N.  E.  2:?:5.  affirming 
59  Super.  Ct.  3  30,  13  N. 

Y.  S.  G14 735.  795, 

798,  943,     952 
V.  Holland,     11     Ohio    Dec. 
(Reprint)    768,  29  Cine. 

L.  Rul.   115 711, 

780,  878,  901,  903,  904, 
918,  920.  921,  922,  924, 

925,  928,  93G,     941 
V.  Holmes,  lOti  Ga.  858,  33 

S.    E.   21(5 302 

V.  Horn,  120  HI.  App.  359,     154 
V.  Matthews,   3    Grant.   Ch. 

(N.  C.)   379 183 

V.  Peck,  1  R.  I.  242 517, 

548.  549,  550,  5G8,  582,     585 
V.  Rogers,  13  Cal.  191.  .444, 

493,  496 
V.  Sinniekson's  15  N.  J.  313  988 
V.  State,   82   Neb.   406,   118 

N.  W.  99   482 

V.  Wavmire,    73    Kan.    104, 
9 'Ann.    Cas.    624,    84 

Pac.     558 1016,  1024 

Holms  V.   Johnston,     12    Heisk. 

(Tenn.)    155    487 

Holshue  V.  Morgan,  170  Pa.  St. 

217.  32  Atl.  623 85 

Holt  V.  Idleman,    34    Ore.    114, 

54   Pac.   279 246 

V.  Jesse,  3  Ch.  D.  177 403 

V.  Quiraby,  6  N.  H.  79 1056 

Holtliausen  v.  Pondir,  55  Super. 

Ct.  73,  18  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  360     219 
Holton  V.  Brown,  18  Vt.  224,  46 

Am.    Dec.   148 328 

Holy  V.  Biult,  3  B.  &  Ad.  350, 

2.3  E.  C.  L.  91 566 

Holvoke  V.  Holyoke,  87  Atl.  40 

210,     222 
Holy   Trinity   Church   v.   U.   S., 
143  U.  S.  457,  12  S.  Ct.  511, 

36  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  226 338 

Homans  v.  Tvng,  56   App.   Div. 

383,  67  X.  Y.  S.  792 250,     499 

Home  Discount  Co.,  Re,  147  Fed. 

538,  17  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  168     630 
Home    F.    Ins.    Co.  v.   Berg,  46 

Neb.  600,  65  X.  W.  780.  .  .  175,     195 
Hommeyer    v.     Beere,     13     Civ. 

Proc.    (N.  Y.)    169 1048 

Honan  v.  Montreal  Bar,  30  Can. 

Sup.  Ct.  1    1228,  1298 

Hong   Yen   Chang,    Re,   84    Cal. 

163,  24  Pac.   156 37,       40 


Hood   V.    Fahnestock,    8    Watts. 
(Pa.)   489,  34  Am.  Dec. 

489     267,     269 

V.  State,  44  Ala.  81    628 

V.  Ware,  34  Ga.  328... 233, 

779,  900,     902 
Hooker  v.  Axford,  33  Mich.  453 

273,  280,  291,     515 
V.  Brandon,    75    Wis.    8.    43 

X.   W.  741..  .375,  510,     904 
Hookey  v.  Greenstein,  119  App. 

Div.  209,   104  X.  Y.  S.  621 425 

Hooper,    Re,    2    De    G.   J.   &    S. 
(Eng.)     91,    33    L.    J. 

Ch.   300 908 

V.  Brundage,   22  Me.  460.. 
955,      987,      989,      990, 

1002,  1055 
V.  Harcourt,       1       H.       Bl 

(Eng.)     534 218 

V.  Welch,  43  Vt.  169,  5  Am. 

Rep.  207 805,  995, 

1041,   1048,  1050 
V.  Bradshavv,    231     Pa.    St. 

485,  80  Atl.   1098    34 

V.  Burnett,   26   Miss.   428 .  . 

279,  280,  393,     515 
Hoosac    Tunnel    Dock,    etc.,    Co. 
V.  O'Brien,  137  Mass.  424,  50 

Am.  Rep.  323   523 

Hooven   ]\lercantile   Co.   v.   Mor- 
gan, 15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  567,  4  Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  48    in 

Hoover  v.  Greenbaum,  62  Barb. 

(N.  Y.)   188   268 

V.  Greenbaum,  61  X.  Y.  305     231 
v.  Shackleford,      23      Miss. 

520    550,  584,     592 

V.  Wise,    91   U.    S.   308,   23 
U.  S.    (L.  ed.)   393,  af- 
firming 61  X.  Y.  305. .      269 
Hope,  Re,  9  Jur.    (Eng.)    856..      115 
Hope  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cambreleng, 

3  Thomp.  &  C.  495 208,     270 

Hopkins,  Re,  54  Wash.  569,  103 
Pac.   805.  .  .1179,    1258, 

1270, 1316,  1325 
V.  Mallard,     1     G      Greene 

(la.)    117    510,     890 

v.  Willard,    14    Vt.    474    .  . 

411,     578 
Hopkinson  v.  Buckley,  8  Taunt. 

74,  4  E.  C.  L.  23 130 

v.  Jones,  28  111.  App.  409.  .      884 
Hopper  V.  Com.,  6  Gratt.    (Va.) 

684     1102.  1107 


CXXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


439 
945 


Hopper  V.  Ludluin,  41  N.  J.  L. 

182    704,     870 

Hoppin  V.   First  Nat.   Bank,  25 

Nev.  84,  56  Pac.  1121 

Hopping     V.     Quin,     12     Wend. 

(N.    Y.)    517 

Hord  V.  State,  167  Ind.  022,  79 

N.   W.   9]() 1140,    1147,  1148 

Horkev  v.  Kendall,  53  Neb.  522, 

73  N.  W.  953 131 

Horn  V.  Hamilton,  89  Cal.  270, 

20  Pac.  833   001 

V.  Horn,  115  App.  Div.  292, 

100  N.  Y.  S.  790.  .993,  1028 
Hornaday  v.   Campbell,  21   Ind. 

76  877 

Hornsbv  v.  Tucker  (Ala.)  61 

So.  928  677 

Hornstein   Co.   v.   Crandall,   156 

111.  App.  520 462 

Horseshoe   ]\Iin.   Co.   v.   Miners' 
Ore    Sampling    Co.,    147    Fed. 

517,  77  C.  C.  A.  213 342, 

352,  354,     451 
Horsey  v.  Chew,  65   Md.  555,  5 

Atl.  466    380,  384,  409,     499 

Horsfall   v.   Matthewman,   3   M. 

&  S.   (Eng.)    154   130 

Horton,  Pve,   8  Q.   B.   D.    (Eng.) 

434    25,   100,     107 

V.  Champ! in,   12   R.   I.   550, 

34   Am.  Rep.  722.. 988,  1086 
V.  Gillinwaters,    (Tenn.)    41 

S.  W.  1083    934 

V.  State.    11    Ga.    App.    33, 

74    S.    E.    559 1099,   1121 

Hoss's   Succession,   42   La.   Ann. 

1022,   8   So.   833 293,     301 

Hotaling  v.   Montieth,    128   Cal. 

556,  61  Pac.  95   776 

Hotchkiss,  Re,  58  Cal.  39 1293 

V.  LeRoy,  9  Johns.   (N.  Y.) 

142'. 231,    889,    891, 

892,  903,     904 
Howck  V.  Rridweil,  28  j\lo.  App. 

044    718 

Hough  V.  Edwards,  37  Eng.  I..  & 

Eq.  470    978 

V.  Edwar.ls,      1       II.     &     N. 

(iMig.)      171 975 

V.   Wells,    86    111.    .\pi).    ISJ;      773 
Houghton,    Ke,    07    (  al.    .■)1],    S 

Pac.   52    1308 

Re,  5   S.   I).   737,  59   N.   W. 

733    132t 

Re,  9   S.    I).  4:.7,   70   N.   W. 

634    1314 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Houghton  V.  Clarke.  80  Cal.  417. 

22   Pac.  288  .  .  798,  800, 

V.  Ellis,  19  Colo.  App.  125, 

73  Pac.  752    358, 

V.  Kendall,  7  Allen   (Mass.) 


Houghton,    etc..    Mercantile   Co. 
V.    Dvmont,    2    Okla.    365,    37 

Pac.  "1052    

Houk    V.    IMontgomerv    County, 
14    Ind.    App.    662,^41    N.    E. 

1068    

House  V.  House,    61     Mich.    69, 
27    N.   W.    858,   1   Am. 

St.  Rep.  570 185, 

V.  Whitis,  5  Baxt.    (Tenn.) 

090    143,  144, 

Housenick  v.  Miller,  93  Pa.  St. 

514    385,   388,   397, 

Hou.x  V.  Blum,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

588,  29   S.   W.   1135.  .. 

181, 

V.  Russell,    10    Mo.    246.  .  . 

394,   519,  574, 

Hover  v.  Heath,  3  Hun    (N.  Y.) 

283    

Hovey,   Re,   80  Pac.  234,   1   Cal. 

App.   XVIII.  mem.,   81 

Pac.  1019.  .  .34,  90,  94, 

V.  Edmison,  3  Dak.  449,  22 

N.   W.   594 

v.  Rubber    Tip    Pencil    Co., 
14  Abb.   Pr.   N.  S.    (N. 

Y.)    00    

How  V.  Codman,  4  Greenl.  (Me.) 

79    

Howard  v.  Burke.  248  111.  224, 
93  N.  E.  775,  140  Am. 

St.  Rep.  159  

v.  Burns,  14  S.  D.  383,  85 

N.  W.  920 109  4, 

v.  Carpenter,  1 1  Md.  259 .  . 

V.  Charleston   First   Nat. 

Bank,  (Va.)  27  S.  E. 

492  789, 

V.  Cornel ison,  5  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

902  I 

v.  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  (Tex.) 

135  S.  W.  707  

V.  Gunn,  32  Beav.  (Eng.) 

402  

V.  Howard,  11  How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)  80.  .  .235,  422, 

V.  Keilv,  137  la.  76,  114 

N.'W.  544,  126  Am.  St. 

Kep.  274 


952 

484 
309 

417 

715 

206 
713 
409 

206 
599 
.608 


1251 

772 

1055 
541 

415 

1127 
358 

793 
741 
1241 
515 
437 

296 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXXXIX 


[References 

Howard  v.  Osceola,  22  Wis.  4r^:\ 
1031,   10:}(i,   KMil,  1()(;4, 

KKi."),   1075 
V.  Ravvson,    2    Leigh     (Va.) 

733    '. 539 

V.  Riker.    11    Abb.    N.    ('as. 

(N.  Y.)   113 983,   107G 

V.  Smith,  33  Super.  Ct.   (N. 

Y.)    124    417,     435 

V.  Throckmorton,     48     (Jal. 

482  731,     737 

V.  Ward,  (S.  D.)  139  N.  W. 

771   755,  756,  995, 

1041,  1075 
V.  ^^■llittenlore,  9  N.  H.  133     50G 
Howard  County  v.  Pollard,  153 

Ind.  371,  55  N.  W.  87...  145,     717 
Howe  V.  Anderson,   (Ky. )    14  S. 

W.    210     416,     425 

V.  Kenyon,  4  Wash.  677,  30 

Pac.    1058    770,     771 

V.  Klein,    89    Me.    376,    36 

Atl.   620 982,  1055 

V.  Lawrence,  22  N.  J.  L.  99 

479,  480,     485 
V.  Oldham,   69   Hun   57,   23 

N.  Y.  S.  703 640 

V.  Stuart,  63  Misc.  352,  123 
N.  Y.  S.  971.  reversing 
67    Misc.    240,    124    N. 

Y.  S.  416  216 

Howell    V.    Baker,  4  Johns.  Ch. 
N.  Y.)    118.  .  .274,  279, 

294,  290,  298,  303,  304 
V.  Caryl,  50  Mo.  App.  440  532 
V.  Kinney,   1  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)  '105    462,  463,     543 

V.  McCreery,  7  Dana   (Ky.) 

388     296,     298 

V.  Ransom,    11    Paige     (N. 

Y.)    538    272,  274, 

281,  282,  285,  286,  298 
V.  Smith,  108  Mich.  350,  66 

N.  W.  218 887.  938.     955 

V.  Young,  5  B.  &  C.  259,  11 
E.  C.  L.  218.  2  C.  .V-  P. 
238,  12  E.  C.  L.  107.. 

556,  560,     588 
Rowland   v.   Spencer,    14    N.   H. 

580 530 

V.   Taylor,   6   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

237   262 

Howth    V.    Greer,    40    Tex.    Civ. 

App.  552,  90  S.  W.  211.  .1115,  1123 
Hoy  V   Morris,  13  Gray  (Mass.) 

519,  74  Am.  Dec.  650   .  .    172,     207 


are  to  pages.] 

Hoyt,   Re,   12   Civ.   Proc.   208,   5 
Dem.  432,  8   N.  Y.   St. 

Rep.  786   1010 

V.  Easton,  40  Misc.  264,  81 

N.    Y.    S.    914     .326 

Hroch  V.  Aultman  &  Taylor  Co., 
3  S.  D.  477,  54  N.  W.  269    .  . 

999.  1000,  1054 

Hubbard  v.  Ellithorpe,   135   la. 

259,  112  N.  W.  796,  124 

Am.  St.  Rep.  271.  .990, 

999,    1010,    1030,    1034, 

1035,    1068,    1080,  1083 
V.  Gicquel,  14  Civ.  Proc.  15, 
15  N.  Y.  St.   Rep.   397 

541,     546 
V.  McLean,  115  Wis.  9,  90 

N.    W.    1077    51& 

V.  Shaw,  12  Allen    (Mass.) 

120 358 

V.       Woodbury,       7       Allen 

(Mass.)    422   870,     887 

Hubbart  v.  Phillips,  13  M.  &  W. 

(Eng.)   702 437 

Huber   v.    Brown,    243    111.    274, 

90   N.    E.    748    .  .    772,     775. 
V.  Johnson,  68  Minn.  74,  70 
N.  W.  806,  64  Am.  St. 
Rep.    456    .  .    659,   662, 

667,  670,     755. 
Hubble  V.  Dunlap,  101  Ky.  419, 

41  S.  W.  432,  19  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

656 1040,  1045 

Huddleston  v.  Kempner,   1   Tex. 

Civ.  App.   211,  21   S.  W.  946     778 
Hudson,    Re,    102    Cal.    467,    36 

Pac.  812    1293 

V.  Allison,  54  Ind.  215.  .492,     494 
v.  Johnson,  1  Wash.    (Va.) 

10 364,     365 

V.  Kimbrough,  74  Miss.  341. 

20    So.    885     605,     606 

V.    Sanders.    10    Ohio    Cir. 
Dec.   342,  19  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.   615    729,     765 

V.    Smith,    111    la.    411.    82 

N.    W.    943    128,     130 

Hudson   River   W.    S.   R.   Co.   v. 
Kay,   14  Abb.   Pr.  N.   S.    (N. 

Y.)    191    437 

Hudson     Trust,     etc.,     Inst.     v. 
Carr-Curran   Paper   Mills.   44 

Atl.   638    237,   254,   262,  1051 

Hudspeth   v.    Yetzer.   78   la.   11, 

42  N.  W.  529  .  .  771,  779,  902,     961 
Huebschman    v.    Baker,    7    W'is. 

542 533. 


cxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


HuflFman,  Re,  132  Mo.  App.  44, 

111    S.    W.    848     IGl, 

Hughan  v.  Grimes,  62  Kan.  258. 

62    Pac.    326    

Hughes,  Ex  p.,  6  Ves.  Jr.  (Eng.) 

617   

V.   Alsip,    112    Cal.    587,   44 

Pac.  1027    

V,  Boone,   102  N.  C.  137,  9 

S.  E.  286 155,  156. 

157,  163,  170,  184,  186. 

197.  213,  214, 

V.  Boyce,  2  La.  Ann.  803.. 

571, 

V.  Brooks,  36  Tex.  379 

V.   Dougherty,   62   111.   App. 

464     

V.   Dundee  Mortg.   Co.,   140 

U.  S.  98,  11  S.  Ct.  727, 

35   U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    354 

V.  Dundee  Mortg.,  etc.,  Co., 

21  Fed.  169  .  .  780, 782, 

V.    Ferriman,   119    111.   App. 

169    882,  887, 

V.  Flint.  61  Wash.  460,  112 

Pac.  633    853 

V.  Mulvev,  1  Sandf.  (N.  Y.) 

92  .^ 

V,  New  York  Evening  Post 
Co.,  115  App.  Div.  611, 
100  N.  Y.  S.  982  .... 

V.  Osborn,  42  Ind.  450 

V.  Willson,  128  Ind.  491,  26 

N.  E.  50   

V.  Zeigler,  69  111.  38   ..462. 

709,  747,  764,  768, 

Hughes  County  v.  Ward,  81  Fed. 

314    ." 374.  375, 

Hnlhert  v.  Douglas,  94  N.  C.  122 

Hull  V.  Lvon,  27  Mo.  570  ..  163, 

184, 

V.    Phillips,    128    Mo.    App. 

247,  107  S.  W.  21    .... 

Hulm,  Pvc,  [1892]  2  Q.  B.  261   .. 

Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc,  v.  Duck- 

er.  111  Ky.  759,  64   S. 

W.  671,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

1073    291,   548, 

550,    552,    554.    584. 

V.  Ducker,  82  S.  W.  969,  26 

Ky.  1..  R("i).  931    .  .  556, 

.Hume   V.    fniiiiiii'i'cial    I'.iiiik,    l."> 

I.cu  (  rciiii.  I   ^IMi  .  .7S2. 

845, 

V.    Peterson.    91     Nch.    :M7, 

135    .\.    W.    1013    


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Hume  y.  Decatur  Land  Improy- 
ment  &  Furnace  Co.,  98 
Ala.    461,    13    So.    368 

709,  768,  872,  888.     903 
Hummel  y.  Kistner,  182  Pa.  St. 

216.    37    Atl.    815     184,     207 

Humphrey  v.  Browning,  46  111. 
476,    95    Am.    Dec.    446 

1024,  1031 
V.  Cumming,  5  Wend.  90.. 

10,     115 
V.  Darlington,  15  la.  207  . .      312 

V.  Hurd,  31  Mich.  436 300 

V.  Thorp,  89  Fed.  66  .  .  379, 

383,     407 
V.    Harvey,  1  Bing.  N.  Cas. 

62,  27  E.  C.  L.  312    .  .      885 
V.  Jacoby,  41  Minn.  226.  42 

N.  W.  1059 779,     952 

V.  McLachlan,  87  Miss.  532, 

40  So.  151   723, 

728,  738,     765 
V.  Mead,  23  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

415  634 

Humptulips  Driving  Co.  v. 
Cross,  65  Wash.  636,  118  Pac. 
827,   37   L.R.A.(X.S.)    226    .. 

457,  978,  980.  999,  1044 
Hunneman  y.  Phelps,  199  Mass. 

15.  85  X.  E.  169    886,     936 

Hunt,  Re.  Tuck.  (N.  Y.)  55.  .15.     237 
y.  Blackburn,  128  U.  S.  464, 
9  S.  Ct.  125,   32  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)    488    224 

V.  Brennan,  1  Hun    (N.  Y. ) 

213 424 

v.  Chicago  Horse  &  Dummy 

R.  Co.,  20  111.  App.  282, 

attirmod  121  111.  638.  13 

N.  E.  176..  1142,  1144,  1161 

y.  Hunt,  154  App.  Div.  833, 

139  N.  Y.  S.  413    482 

v.  Lyle.  8  Yerg.  (Tenn.)   142     685 
v.     jNIcClanahan,     1     Heisk. 

(Tenn.)  503 721, 

974,  997,  1026 
v.  Onderdonk,  3  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)  149  470 

y.  Orleans  Cotton  Press  ('o., 
2  Hob.   (La.)   404.  .921. 

922,    !)24.    925,     926 

y.  Printup,  28  Ca.   297  527 

v.  RousTuanier.  8  Wheat. 
174.  5  II.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
589 244 


195 
851 
293 
856 

220 

592 

859 

25 

767 
950 
931 


30 

140 
434 

300 

864 

376 

267 

180 

997 
611 


587 
557 

888 


02 


TABLE    01<'    CASKS. 


cxli 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Hunt  V.  Trusts,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Ont. 
App.    147,    adinned    18 

Ont.  L.   Rep.   351    330 

Hunt's  Petition,  Tuck.    (N.  Y. ) 

55  ...  254 

Hunter,  Exp.,  2  W.  Va.  122,  144 

44,       83 
V.    Aticins,     3    Mvi.    &    K. 

(Eni,'.)   113  ." 273 

V.  Bryant,   98   Cal.  248,   33 

Pac.  51 415,     435 

V.  Caldwell,  10  Q.  B.  60, 
59  E.  C.  L.  69,  11  Jur. 
770,  affirmed  10  Q.  B. 
83,  59  E.  C.  L.   83,  12 

Jur.  285   551,     564 

V.  Van  Bomhorst,  1  Md.  504 

183,     192 
V.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  149  Mo. 
App.    243,    130    S.    W. 

103 501 

V.  Watson,  12  Cal.  363,  73 

Am.    Dec.    543    .  .    154,     170 
Huntington   v.   Gault.   81   Mich. 

144,  45  N.  W.  970 646 

V.  Rumnill,  3  Day    (Conn.) 

390   587,  589,     593 

Hurd  V.  Moring.  1  C.  &  P.  372, 

11    E.    C.   L.    425    219 

Hurlbert  v.  Brigham,  .56  Vt.  368 

970,  991,  995,  1018 

V.  Hurlburt,  128  N.  Y.  420, 

28   N.   E.   651,   26   Am. 

St.  Rep.  482,  affirming 

50  Hun  600  mem.,  2  N. 

Y.  S.  317 184 

Hurr  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
141  Mo.  App.  217,  124  S.  W. 

1057   807,  808,     813 

Hurst,   Ex   p.,   4   Dall.    387,    12 

Fed.    Cas.    No.    6,924.  .        10 
V.  Durnell,  1  Wash.  438,  12 

Fed.    Cas.   No.    6,928.  .      827 
V.  Sheets,  21  la.   501.. 995, 

1016,     1056 
Hurst's  Case,  1  Lev.    (Eng.)    75  1329 
Husband    v.    Georgia    Southern, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.   J  57, 

59  S.  E.  326    124,     128 

Husson,  Re,  26  Hun  (N.  Y.)  130 

610,  614,     615 

Hust  V.  Conn,  12  Ind.  257    150 

Huston,  Re,  127  App.  Div.  492, 

111  N.  Y.  S.  731 1267 

V.  Mitchell,  14  S.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  307,  16  Am.  Dec. 
506 385,  392,  393,     400 


Hutcheson    v.    Johnson,    1    Bin 

(  Pa. )   59   468 

Hutchins  v.  Munn,  28  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  271,  affirmed  209  U. 
S.  246,  28   S.   Ct.  504,   52  U, 

S.   (L.  ed.)   776   439 

Hutchinson  v.   Dunham,  41   111. 

App.  107   956 

V.  Howard,  15  Vt.  544 

805,  986,  994.  996,  1032, 

1035,  1036,  1041 
V.  Pettes,  18  Vt.  614  . .  1041 

1048,  1050,  1078 
V.  Worthington,  7  App.  Cas. 

(D.   C.)    548    980.  10-52 

Huthsing  v.  Maus,  36  Mo.  101  461 
Hutson,  Re,  127  App.  Div.  492, 

111  N.  Y.  S.  731,  1253, 

1300,  1320 
Hutts  V.  Martin,  134  Ind.  587, 

33  N.  E.  676 848 

Hyams  v.  Herndon,  36  La.  Ann. 

879 298,     302 

v.  Michel,  3  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.) 

303    503,     505 

Hyatt  v.  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

68  la.  662,  27  N.  W.  815.  .750,     760 
Hyatt  v.  Hamilton  Countv,  121 
la.  292,  96  N.  W.  855,  100  Am. 
St.   Rep.   354,   63   L.R.A.   614, 

reversing  90  N.  W.  508    148 

Hyde  v.  Bloomingdale,  23  Misc. 

728,  51  N.  Y.  S.  1025..      267 
V.    Moxie    Nerve-Food    Co., 
160  Mass.  559,  36  N.  E. 

585   712,  791,     956 

V.  Territory,  8  Okla.  69,  56 

Pac.  851    1099 

Hyer  v.  Little,  20  N.  J.  Eq.  443     276 
Hyman  v.  Barmon,  6  Wash.  516, 

33  Pac.  1076   268 

V.  Grant,  102  Tex.  50,  112 

S.    W.    1042    188,     214 

V.  Gray,  49  N.  E.  155   605 

Hynes,   Re,    105   N.   Y.   560,    12 

N.  E.  60  .  .  710,  739,  772,  913,     956 
Hynman   v.   Washington,  2   Mc- 
"Cord  L.  (S.  C.)  493 612,     620 


Ikerd   v.    Borland,    35   La.   Ann. 

337   510 

Illinois  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Crider, 
91  Tenn.  489,  19  S.  W. 
618    853 


cxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Illinois  V.  Wells.  104  Tenn.  706, 
59  S.  W.  1041   ..    1010, 

1011,  1015, 1043,  1070 
Illinois  Steel  Co.  v.  Warras,  141 

Wis.  110,  123  N.  W.  656.  .455.     481 
Illustrated    Card,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Dolan,  208  Mass.  53,  94  N.  E. 

29!) 602 

Imperatori.    Re,    152    App.    Div. 

86,  136  X.  Y.  S.  675 1234,  1318 

Incorporated  Law  Soc,  Ex  p., 
[1898]  1  Q.  B.  (Eng.)  331, 
77  L.  T.  N.  S.  661,  67  L.  J.  Q. 

B.  245   1181 

Independent  Pub.  Co.  v.  Lewis  &, 
Clarke   County,   30  Mont.   83, 

75  Pac.  860  .  .' 1114 

Indiana  Bond  Co.  v.  Jameson,  24 

Ind.  App.  8,  56  X.  E.  37 856 

Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maddv, 
103  Ind.  200,  2  N.  E.  574..  .*. 

416.     431 
Indianapolis    v.    Scott,    72    Ind. 

106   175 

Indianapolis  Chair  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Swift,  132  Ind.  197,  31  X.  E. 

800     416,    422,     884 

Indianapolis  Journal  Xewspaper 
Co.  V.  Pugh,  6  Ind.  App.  510, 

33  X.  E.  991    850 

Indianapolis  Traction,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Henbv,  (Ind.)  97  X.  E.  313 

632,  633.  638.  640.  641,     646 
Ingalls    V.    Sprague,    10    Wend. 

(X.   Y.)    672    518 

Inge  V.  Murpliy  10  Ala.  885 334 

Ingenliuett  v.  Hunt,  15  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  248,  39  S.  W.  310 312 

Ingeriiam    v.    Weatherman,    79 

Mo.  App.  480  155 

Ingersoll  v.  Coal  Creek  Coal  Co., 
117  Tenn.  263,  10  Ann. 
Cas.  820,  98  S.  W.  178, 
119  Am.  St.  Rep.  1003. 
9  L.R.A.  (X.S.)  282.. 
702,      757,      957,      958, 

1043.  1002,  1085.  1254 
V.  Coram,  211  U.  8.  335,  29 
S.  (  t.  92,  53  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  208.  reversing  148 
F>'(1.  16!),  78  C.  C.  A. 
303,  127  iM-d.  418.  .723. 
7;!4,     9S0,     l(»l!l,     KKK), 

lOSl.    1083 
V.   Howard,  1  Ilcisk.  ('I'cnii.) 

247   17,  83,  1330 


are  to  pages.] 

Ingersoll  v.  Morse,  33  :Miss.  607 

766,     887 
Ingle  V.  State.  8  Blackf.    (Ind.) 

574 1205 

Ingraham  v.  Leland,  19  Vt.  304       17 
Ingram    v.    Richardson,    2    La. 

Ann.  839 11,  466,     469 

Inlow  V.   Hughes,   38  Ind.  App. 

375,   76  X.   E.   763    210,     327 

In  re  see  name  of  party. 

Insurance  Co.  v.  Roberts,  6 
Phila.     (Pa.)     516,    25 

Leg.  Int.  28   357 

V.  Shields,  12  Phila.    (Pa.) 

407.  35  Leg.  Ont.  170..      775 
Internal  Imp.  Fund  v.  Grecnough, 
105   U.  S.  537,  26  U.   S.    (L. 

ed.)    1157    841,     842 

International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Clark,  48  Am.  &  Eng. 
R.  Cas.  81,  81  Tex.  51, 

16  S.  W.  631 787, 

788.     791,      901.      903, 
925,  926,  928,  930,  942,     962 
V.     Duncan,     55     Tex.     Civ. 
App.    440,    121    S.    W. 

302   196 

V.  Moore,    (Tex.)    32   S.  W. 

379     149 

International    Harvester    Co.    v. 
Champlin,  154  App.  Div.  917, 

140  X.  Y.  S.  842    417 

Ireland  v.  Todd,  36  Me.  149 356 

Ireson  v.   Pearman.   3    B.   &    C. 
799,  10  E.  C.  L.  232,  5  Dowl. 

&  R.  687  556 

Irlbeck  v.  Bierle,  84  la.  47,  50 

X.  W.  36 850 

Ironside,  Re,  143  App.  Div.  921, 

128  X.  Y.  S.  125    1219 

Ironton    Rolling    Mills    Co.     v. 

Ross,  6  Bush   (Ky.)   103 576 

Irvin  V.  Strother,  163  Ala.  484, 

50  So.  909 780,  888,     960 

Irvine    v.    Spring,    7    Robt.    (X. 

Y.)  293,  35  How.  Pr.  479 373 

Irwin,  He,  177  Fed.  284,  22  Am. 
Bankr.  Rep.  165.  174 
Fed.    642.    98    C.    C.   A. 

396   818 

V.  Armutli,  129  Ind.  341).  28 

X.  K.  702   150.     151 

V.     {{iill'alo     IMtts     Co.,     39 

Wasli.  346.  81  Pac.  849     344 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxliii 


[Rofercnccs 

Irwin  V.  Curie,  171  N.  Y.  400,  04 
N.  E.  161,  58  L.R.A. 
830,  reversing  56  App. 
Div.   514,   67   N.    Y.   S. 

380    681,  1255 

V.  Workman,  3  Watts  (Pa.) 

357   1016 

Isaacs  V.  Abraham,  6  Rep.  737. 
13  Fed.  Cas.   No.   7,094 

237,  254     264 
V.  Ziigsmith,  103  Pa.  St.  77 

385,     388 
Ishell  V.  Weiss,  60  Mo.  App.  54     907 
Isenliart    v.    Hazen.    10    Kan. 
App.   577    mem.,   03    Pac.   451 

327,     833 
Isliam  V.   Parker,  3   Wasli.   755, 

29  Pac.  835 281,  404, 

548,   549,   551,   743,   769,    772, 

780,  891,  947,       956 
Isherwood  v.  H.  L.  Jenl^ins  Lum- 
ber Co.,  87  Minn.  389,  92  N. 

W.  230 685 

Isler  V.  Holland,  77  N.  C.  1 101 

Isom  V.  Bell,  7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  589  1033 
Ives  V.  Ives.  80  Il'un  130,  29  N. 
Y.  S.  1053,  modifving  7  Misc. 
328,  28  X.  Y.  S.'l70   ..    378,     478 
Ivev   V.   Pioneer   Sav.,   etc.,   Co., 
113  Ala.  349,  21  So.  531 139 

J 

J.  B.,  an  Attorney,  Re,  6  Mani- 
toba,   19    ". 1222 

Jack  v.  People,  19  111.  57  .  .  128,     129 
v.  Thweatt,  39  Ark.  340   .  . 

707,  72S,     734 

Jackson,  The,  29  Fed.  396 072 

v.  American  Cigar  Box  Co., 
141  App.  Div.  195,  126 

N.  Y.  S.  58 995, 

1006,  1062 
V.  Anderson,   4   Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    474   545 

V.    Bartlett,    8    Johns.     (N. 

Y.)    361    250,     411 

V.  Bell,  5  S.  D.  257,  58  N. 

W.  u/1 640 

V.  Bennett.  98  Ga.   106,  20 

S.  E.  53   329,     330 

V.    Bolirman,    59    Wis.    422, 

18  X.  W.  456   831 

V.  Burt  is,  14  Jolins.  (X.  Y.) 

;i91    198 

V.  Clopton,  66  Ala.  29   

552,  592,     888 


•ire  to  pages.] 

Jackson  v.  Com..  96  Va.  107,  30 

S.  E.  452    1107,  1122 

V.    Erkins.    131    App.    Div. 
801,   no  N.  Y.   S.  385 

994,  1030 
V.  French,  3  Wend.   (X.  Y.) 

337,  20  Am.  Dec.  099.  .      200 
V.   Gardner,   Col.   &   C.  Cas. 

( N.   Y. )    359    472 

V.  Gould,  96  la.  488,  65  X. 

W.  406 562 

V.   Jackson,   82   Md.    17,   33 

Atl.  317,  34  L.R.A.  773     334 
V.    McVey,    18    Johns.     (N. 

Y. )   330   202 

V.  Moore,  72  App.  Div.  217, 
76  N.  Y.  S.  164  .  .   574, 

595,  597,  599,     000 
V.  Phillips,  14  Allen  (Mass.) 

539   1154 

V.    Powell,    2    Johns.    Cas. 

(X.  Y.)    67    540 

V.  State,  21  Tex.  668.  .1109, 

1284,  1288,  1301,  1313 
V.  Slate,  81  Wis.  127,  51  X. 

W.  89  1096 

V.  Stearns,  48  Ore.  25,  84 
Pac.   798,  5   L.R.A. 

(X.S.)  390 672, 

755,  1040,  1045,  1051, 

1064,  1065.  1075 
V.  Stewart,  6  Johns.  ( X.  Y. ) 

.34  417,  444,  518 

V.  Stiles,  11  Johns.   (X.  Y.) 

195   470 

V.  Stone.  48  App.  Div.  028, 

04   X.   Y.   S.   820    764 

-».  Swayne,  92  Tex.  242,  47 

S.'W.    711    1115 

V.  Tilghman,  1  Miles   (Pa.) 

31   593 

Jackson's  Succession,  30  La. 

Ann.  463  931.  934,  936 

Jacobs,  Re,  49  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 

370 852 

Re,  137  App.  Div.  937,  122 

X.  Y.  S.  475  1298 

V.  Copeland.  54  Me.  503  .  .   421 

V.  Crum,  02  Tex.  401  038 

V.  Marshall,  6  Duer  (X.  Y.) 

689   474 

Jacobson  v.  Jones,  128  111.  App. 

55  574,  575,  603 

Jaeger  v.  Koenig,  33  Misc.  82, 
67  X.  Y.  S.  172,  reversing  32 
Misc.   244,    65   N.   Y.   S.    795 

735,  1056 


ex 


xliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


222 

296 

709 

470 


477 


Jahn  V.  Champagne  Lumber  Co., 

157  Fed.  407    674 

Jahnke   v.    State,    68    Neb.    154, 
04  N.  W.  158,  reversed  68  Neb. 

182,  104  N.  W.  154 155, 

185,  196, 
James,  Ex  p.,  8  Ves.  Jr.   (Eng.) 

337   

Ex   p.,   8   N.    Brims.    286 .  . 
V.  Berry,   1   Paige    (N.  Y.) 

47    

V.   Boston   El.    R.   Co.,   201 

Mass.  263,  87  N.  E.  474 

340    342. 

V.  Helm.  129  Kv.  323,   111 

S.   W.   335,   33   Ky.   L. 

Rep.  871    1097 

V.  Steere,  16  R.  I.  367,   16 

Atl.   143,  2  L.R.A.   164     274 
James  T.  Hair  Co.  v.  Thorne,  27 

111.  App.  502   875 

Jamieson,  Re,  4  Ad.  &  El.  945, 

31  E.  C.  L.  231   

Jamison  v.  Mav,  13  Ark.  600.. 

487, 

V.  Ranck,   140  la.  0.35,   119 

N.  W.  76   1001, 

1002,  1004,  1005,  1080,  1082 
V.  Weaver,  81  la.  212,  46  N. 

W.   996    557, 

Janeway  v.  Skerritt,  60  N.  J.  L. 

97     

January   v.   Mansell's    Adm'r,   4 

Bibb.  (Ky.)  .')66 1018 

V.  Superior  Ct.,  73  Cal.  537, 

15    Pac.    108     

Jaquess  v.  Hagner,  72  N.  Y.  605 

548, 

Jarnagin     v.     State,     10     Yerg. 

(Tenn.)   529  1122 

Jarvis  v.  Soutlieni  Croeerv  Co., 

63  Ark.  225,  38  S.  W.  148 

Jasper   v.    I'liriicll,    67    111.    358 

Jeanes  v.   Fridcnberg,  3   Pa.   L. 

J.   Rep.    ]99,   5   Pa.  L.   J.   65, 

163,    169,    170,    171,    188,    190, 

195,    198,   200,   201,   202,   209, 

216, 

JefTards  v.  l?rooklvn  Heights  H. 

Co.,  49  App.  Hiv.  45,  63  N.  V. 

S.  5.30    1051 

JcfTi'rHon    Bank    v.    Cossctt,    45 

.Misc.    6.30.   90   N.   Y.   S.    1049 

Jeflerson    (lity    Exchange    liank 

V.    .Mciclier,"  85    .Mo.    362    

JcfrcrsoMville   R.  (Jo.   v.   Suuync, 
26  Ind.  477 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

JefTres  v.  Cothrane,  47  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)    557    985 

Jeffries  v.  Laurie,  23  Fed.  786, 
27  Fed.  195  ..608,  611, 
622,     624,     840,     1206, 

1218,  1219 

V.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.,   110 

U.  S.  305,  4  S.  Ct.  8,  28 

U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    156.  af- 

tirming  1  MeCrary  117, 

1  Fed.  450 401,     406 

V.  New  York  ^lut.  L.  Ins. 
Co.,  110  U.  S.  305,  4 
S.   Ct.   8,  28  U.  S.    (L. 

ed.)    156    247 

V.  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co., 
1  Fed.  450,  1  McCrary 

117   404 

Jenkins.  Re,  192  Fed.  1000 777 

v.  Barber,  85  Miss,  666,  38 

So.  36  308,  311 

V.  Bradford,  59  Ala.  400..      667 
V.    Clopton,    141    Mo.    App. 

74,  121  S.  W.  759.. 574,     607 
v.  Dodge,  11  B.  Men.  (Ky.) 

178  740 

V.  Einstein,  3  Bisc.  128,  13 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  7.265  .  .  . 

276,  285,     741 
V.  French,  58  N,  H.  532  ...      591 
V.   Gillespie,    10    Smedes   & 
M.    (Miss.)    31,  48  Am. 

Doc.  732 489,  490,     491 

V.    Mason,    3    Moo.    C.    PL 

325,  4  E.  C.  L.  434   .  .      130 
V.    Stephens,    60    Ga.    216 

584,  592,  1002 
V.  Williams,  2  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)   261    741 

Jenkinson    v.    State,    5    Blackf. 

(Ind.)  465   ..  , 154.  155,     156 

Jenne  v.   Ilarrisville,   63   N.   II. 

405   336 

Jenness  v.  Simpson,  84  Vt.  127, 

78  Atl.  886  334 

Jenney  v.   Delesdernier,   20  Me. 

183    384,   408,   409,   412, 

455,  506.  532 
Jennings  v.  Bacon,  84  la.  403, 

51  N.  W.  15  995 

v.  McConnel,  17  111.  148 

272,  273,  278,  283,  289 
V.  Paine,  4  Wis.  358  ..119,  121 
v.  Simpson.  12  Neb.  558,  11 

N.  VV.  880  574 


488 
561 


944 

346 


472 


504 


773 
(i26 


219 


485 


384 
149 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlv 


[References 

Jennings  v.  South  Wliilley  Hoop 
Co.   (Ind.)  1)8  N.  E.  194 

381,     38.3 
V.  State  Veteriiiarv   Board, 
156   :\[ieli.   417.    120   X. 
W.      785,     16     Detroit 

Leg.    N.    101     1150 

V.  Sturdevant,  140  Ind.  641, 

40  N.  E.  61 175 

Jensen  v.  Halstead.  61  Neb.  24!), 

85  N.  W.  78  .  .   632,  641,  642.     G43 
Jeny  v.  Merkle,   128   App.   Div. 
833,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1106  .  .  237. 

254,  262,     263 
Jereniv   v.   St.   Paul    Boom    Co., 

84  Minn.  516,  88  N.  W.  13..      638 
Jernegan   v.   Osborn,    155   Mass. 

207,  29  N.  E.  520 981 

Jervis  v.  Dewes,  4  Dowl.   (Eng.) 

764 861 

Jespersen  v.  Mech,  213  111.  488, 

72   N.   E.   1114    847 

Jeter   v.   Haviland,   24    Ga.   252 

391,    393.    394,     406 
Jett  V.   Hemstead,   25   Ark.  462 

279,    574.   584.    598,    599,     605 

Jevne  v.  Osgood,  57  111.  340 

936,     940 
Jewel   V.  Neidv,   61    la.   299.    16 

N.  W.  141    .' 669,     728 

Jewett  V.  Wadleigh.  32  Me.  110  396 
Jewitt,  Re,  34  Beav.  (Eng.)  22  974 
Jinks  V.   Moppen,    (Tex.)    80   S. 

W.    390    276,    295,     586 

Johns  V.  Allen,  5   Harr    (Del.) 

419 529 

V.  Bolton,  12  Pa.  St.  339..   328 
V.  State,  88  Neb.  145.  129 

N.  W.  247 1102,  1111 

Johnson,  Re.  27  S.  D.  386,  131 

N.   W.   453    1258 

V.    Anderson.    1    Code    Rep. 

N.  S.   (N.  Y.)   209  note  1048 
V.  A  Raft  of  Spars,  13  Fed. 

Cas.  No.  7.370a   1044 

V.  Ballard,  44  Ind.  270 1055 

V.   Bank   of  Lake,   125   Cal. 
6.  57  Pae.  664,  73  Am. 

St.  Rep.  17 958 

V.  Brandt,  10  Mart.    (La.) 

638  426 

V.    Breckinridge,    4    Kv.    L. 

Rep.  994'  1016, 

1019,  1032,  1066 
V.  Bri;,rlit,  15  111.  464  .  .828,  914 
V.  Brown.  13  W.  Va.  71  .  .  534 
V.  Clarke,  22  Ga.  541  876 


are  to  pages.] 

Johnson  v.  Com.,  2  Duv.  (Kv.) 

410  125,  126 

V.  Cunningham,  1  Ala.  249 

371.  711 
V.  Cutchin.  133  N.  C.  119. 

45  S.  E.  522  910 

V.  Daverne.    19    Johns.    (N. 

Y.)    134,    10   Am.   Dec. 

198   219 

V.  Dun,  75  :\Iinn.  533,  78  N. 

W.  98   390.     531 

V.    Emcrich.    74    Neb.    303, 

12   Ann.   Cas.   851.    104 

N.   W.   169    847 

V.  Gibbons,  27  Gratt.   (Va.) 

632   ....    364,  380,  395.     400 
V.  Hesser,   61   Neb.   631,   85 

N.   W.   894    337 

V.    Hopkins,    1    Chest.    Co. 

Rep.    (Pa.)    68    1057 

V.  Johnson.  141  N.  C.  91.  53 

S.  E.  623 310,     317 

V.   .Johnson,    (Tenn.)    53   S. 

\V.  226 850 

V.  .Jolinson,  31  Fed.  700   ...      460 
V.  Johnson  Railroad  Signal 

Co..   57   N.    J.   Eq.    79, 

40  Atl.  193   1004 

V.   McCurrv.    102    Ga.    471. 

31  S.  E.  88 1010. 

1042.  1075 
V.    McDaniel.    5    Ohio    Dec. 

717    633,     636 

V.  McMillan,   13   Colo.   423, 

22  Pac.  769    989, 

1030,   1047.   1049.  1086 
V.  Mann,  72  Wash.  651,  131 

Pac.  213    744 

V.     Marsh,    21     W.    N.     C. 

(Pa.)  570  778 

V.  Miller,  69   Iowa  562,   29 

N.  W.  743,  58  Am.  Rep. 

231    640.  644.     645 

V.  Miller,   82  Iowa  693,  47 

N.   W.    903,    48    N.    W. 

1081,  31   Am.  St.  Rep. 

514   639 

V.  Munro,  3  Hill  L.   (S.  C.) 

8     553,     590 

V.  Ogilby,  3  P.  Wms.  277..      403 
V.  Outlaw,  56  Miss.  541    .  .  . 

296,  302,  303.  .306,     307 
V.  Patterson.  13  Lea  (Tenn.) 

626   215 

V.   Pvles.    11   Smedes   &    M. 

"(Miss.)    189    958,     959 


cxlvd 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Johnson  v.  Quackenlmsh.  1  Barb. 

Ch.    (X.  Y.)    292    470 

V.  Eavitch,  113  App.  Div. 
810,  921.  99  X.  Y.  S. 
1059.  100  X.  Y.  S.  1123, 
237,  239,  254.  255.  261, 

784,  796,  807,  1051 
V.  St.  Louis  Dispatch  Co.,  2 

Mo.  App.  565 139 

V,  Sample,  31   la.  49    

601,     60S 
V.  Sikes,  49  X'.  C.  70  .  .421.     422 
V.    Southern    Pac.    Co.,    157 
Cal.  333,  107  Pac.  611 

632.     036 
V.  Spracrue.  183  Mass.  102, 

66  X.  E.  422 128, 

453.523,541,     542 
V.    State,    152    Ala.    93,    44 

So.  671  ...   1196,  1201,  1321 
V.  Story,  1  Lea  (Tenn.)   114 

249.  805.  1041.  1046 
V.  Sullivan,  23  Mo.  474  ...  190 
V,  United   R.    Co..   247   Mo. 

326,  152  S.  W.  362,  374     604 

V.  U.  S.,  11  Ct.  CI.  724 255 

V.  Van  Wyck.  4  App.  Cas. 

(D.   C.)    294    670 

V.    Whiteside    County,    110 

111.  22 ".  .   713.     714 

V.  Williams,  3  G.  Greene 
(la.)    97.   54  Am.  Doc. 

491 908 

V.  Williams,  96  Tenn.  338. 

34  S.  W.  434 888,     897 

Johnston  v.  Baca.  13  X.  M.  338, 

85  Pac.  237  ..358,  371,     372 
V.   Bernallo   County,    12    X". 

M.  237,  78  Pac.  43 801 

V.  Cutchin,  133  X.  C.  119, 

45    S.    E.    522    .  .    732.     794 
V.    Lewis,    etc.,    County,    2 

Mont.  159   .  .    145, "^713.     714 
V.  Reilly.  08  X.  J.  Eq.  130, 

59   Atl.   1044    802 

Jolinstone  y.  O'Connor.  21  A])p. 
Diy.  (X.  Y.)  77.  47  X.  Y. 
S.  425,  aflirmed  162  X.  Y.  639, 

57  X.  E.   1113    296,  297, 

303.     305 
John.stown.    etc.,    R.   Co.    y.    E<i- 
bert,  152   Pa.   St.  53,  25    Atl. 

151    358,     385 

Jr)li^  y.    K<Tt,'aM,  4    I'enn.    (  Del.) 

21.    55     Atl.    ;i4()     ISO 

Jonascn    y.     Kenncily.    .'!9     NCIi. 

313.  58  X.  \y.  122' f.lit.     042 


are  to  pages.] 

Jones,   Ex   p..  47   S.   C.   393,   25 

S.    E.   285    389,     478 

Re,    118    Cal.    499.    50   Pac. 

766,    62    Am.    St.    Rep. 

251   311 

Re,  6  Penn.    (Del.)    463,  70 

Atl.  15 218 

Re,  76  Misc.  331.  130  X.  Y. 

S.  819    1013 

Re,   12   Pa.   Co.   Ct.   229,   2 

Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  538    1266 

Re,   29   Utah   333,   81    Pac. 

162    1253 

Re,  70  Vt.  71.  39  Atl.  1087 

1109,  1192,  1257.  1303,  1307 
V.  Bamford,  21  la.  217 ...  207 
V.  Blacklidge.    9   Kan.   562, 

12   Am.   Rep.   503 674 

V.  Boulware.  39  Tex.  307 .  .      309 
V.  Brownlee,    161    Mo.    258, 

01      S.      W.      795,      53 

L.R.A.    445     533,     535 

V.  Byrne,  149  Fed.  457,  re- 
Versed  159  Fed.  321,  90 

C.  C.  A.  101    283 

V.    Caperton,    15    La.    Ann. 

475    322 

V.  Circuit  Judge,   95   Mich. 

289,  54  X.  W.  876..  1006 
V.  Duff  Grain  Co.,   69   Xeh. 

91,  95  X.  W.  1    ..1084, 

1004,   1065,   1006,  1072 
y.  Gilbert,    117    App.    Div. 

775,  102  X.  Y.  S.  983  619 
V.  Goza,  10  La.  Ann.  428  899 
V.  Groover,  46  Ga.  568  ..  1040 
V.  Horsey,    4    Md.    306,    5<J 

Am.' Dec.   81 354, 

452.     489 
v.  Inness,    32    Kan.    177,    4 

Pac.  95    383.  398,     399 

v.  Jefferson,  06  Tex.  570,  1 

S.    W.    903    149 

y.  Jones,    71     Cal.    89,     11 

Pac.  817    032 

v.  Jones,    (Ky.)    39    S.    W. 

251    ". 893 

V.  Jones,  72  Wash.  517,  130 

Pac.  1125    374,     942 

V.  ]>aniont,  118  Cal.  499.  50 

Pac.    766,    02    Am.    St. 

Rep.  251    314 

y.  Leech.  40  la.  ISO  502 

y.  Lewis.  11  'lex.  359  959 

v.    McCiilloii-h.    13S   (Ja.    10. 

74    S.    ]■].   094    .  .    1210,   1320 


TABLE    OF     CASKS. 


cxlvii 


[Ri'fi'rc'iici's 

Jones  V.  McKehvav,  17  N.  J.  L. 

345     ' 439,     445 

V,  Marshall,  2  C.  B.  N.   S. 

615,   89   E.   C.    L.   G15, 

3  Jur.   N.  S.   910    115 

V.  Miller,   1    Swan    (Tenn.) 

]51    019 

V.  Morgan,    07    Cal.    308,    7 

Pac.   734    1124 

V.  Morgan,   39   Ua.   310,  99 

Am.  Dec.  4oS    .  .804, 

1040,   1075 
V.  Muskegon     County     Cir- 
cuit   Judi^e,    95    Mich. 

289,   54   N.   W.   876.  .. 

201,   1005 
V.  Nantahala     Marble,     etc., 

Co.,  137  N.  C.  237,  49 

S.    E.    94 178,    203,     225 

V.  Page,  44  Ala.  057.  .  .  .90,   97 
V.  Ransom,  3  Ind.  327.... 

394,  396 
V.  Rountree,  11  Ga.  App. 

181,  74  S.  E.  1096  ..   858 
V.  Savage,  6  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  658 328 

V.  Savage,     10    Wend.     (N. 

Y.)    021    540,     541 

V.  Spokane   Valley   Land   & 

Water    Co.,    44    Wash. 

140,  87  Pac.  05    512 

V.  State,    150    Ala.    54,    43 

So.  179    1117 

V.  State,    65    Miss.    179,    3 

So.  379    226 

V.  Stevens,        11        Price 

(Eng.)     235,     25     Rev. 

Rep.  714   140 

V.  Sunflower      County,      84 

Miss.  98,  36  So.   188.  ..1119 
V.  U.  S.,  15   Ct.  CI.  204   . .      257 

V.  White,   90   Ind.   255 

548,   583,     584 
V.  Wiliamson,       5       Coldw. 

(Tenn.)    371.  .248.  436, 

440,   492,  490,     507 
V,  Winsor,    22    S.    D.    480, 

118    N.    W.    7 10..  583, 

597,     600 
V.  Wolcott,  2  Allen   (Mass.) 

247   510,  518,     .524 

V.  Woods,    70    Pa.    St.    408 

888,    889,    890,     904 
V.  Yore,  142  Mo.  38,  43  S. 

W.   384    721 

V,  Youno,    228    111.   374.    81 

N.  E.  1042 847,     848 


are  to  pages.  1 

Jones's   Motion,    15   Ct.   CI.   204     254 
Jordan  v.  Alabama  G.  S.  K.  Co., 
81   Ala.  220,  8  So.   191 

632,  633,     037 
V.  Davis,    172   Mo.   599,   72 

S.  W.  686   60S 

V.  Giblin,    12    Cal.    100 147 

v.  Gillen,   44  N.  H.  424.  .  . 

655,  050,     071 
V.  National        Shoe,        etc.. 
Rank,    45     Super.     Ct. 

423    537,     538 

V.  Poillon,   77   N.   Y.   518..      557 
v.  State,    (Te.K.)    143   S.  W. 

023    201 

v.  Swift       Iron       &       Steel 
\\orks.  13  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
970,  14  Ky.  L.  Rep.  194     942 
V.  Tarver,    92    Ga.    379,    17 

S.   E.   .351    253,     209 

V.  ^^'esterman,  02  Mich. 
170,  28  N.  W.  820,  4 
Am.  St.  Rep.  830.. 599, 

750,  758,  759 
Jordans     v.     Van     Hoesen,     IS 

Wend.    (N.  Y.)    648    785 

Jose  v.  Hoyt,  106  Mo.  App.  594, 

81    S.   \\.  468    341,   344.     .345 

Joseph,  Re,   125   App.  Div.  544, 

109  X.   Y.  S.   1018 

1179,  1311 
Re,  135  App.  Div.  589,  120 
N.    Y.    S.    793    ..1236, 

1205.  1206 
Re,  Hall  Mfg.  Co.,  10  Out. 

Pr.   485    307 

V.  Lapp,  78  S.  W.  1119.  . 
237,  238,  261,  202,  792. 

793,   790,  807,  1026 
V.  Piatt,  130  App.  Div.  478. 
114  N.  Y.  S.  1065.... 

358,  405 
Josephthal   v.   Hevman,    2    Abb. 

K  Cas.    (N.  Y.)   22   309 

Josselvn  v.  McAllister,  22  Mich. 

299' 038,     641 

Jov   v.    ^Morgan,    35   Minn.    184, 

28  N.  W.  237    584,     589 

Joyce  v.  Morgan,  66  N.  II.  487, 

23   Atl.   78    544 

Joyner  v.  State,   78  Ala.  448..    1099 
Jubilee  Placer  Co.  v.  Hossfield, 
20   Mont.  234,  50  Pac.  716.. 

458,  4.59,  497 
Juchter  v.  Boehm,  67  Ga.  534  859 
Judah  v.  Vincennes  University, 

16   Ind.  56    !.      768 


cxlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Judah  V.   Vincennes  University, 

23  Ind.  273 74'l.  743 

Judson  V.  Gray,  11  N.  Y.  408 

4G2,  403,  543,  545 

V.  Love,  35  Cal.  463 244 

V.  Romaine,  8  Ind.  App. 

390,  35  N.  E.  812 777 

V.  U.  S.  120  Fed.  637,  57 

C.  C.  A.  99 490 

Julian  V.  State,  122  Ind.  68,  23 
X.  E.  690  . .783,  1146, 

1147,  1148 
V.  State,  140  Ind.  581,  39 

X.  E.  923  1148 

Julier  V.  Julier,  62  Ohio  St.  90, 
56  X.  E.  661,  78  Am.  St.  Rep. 

697     375,     378 

Jungbectcer    v.    Huber,     (Tex.) 

101   S.  W.  552    778 

Justice  V.  Justice,  115  Ind.  201, 

16  X.  E.  615    986 

V.  Lairv,  19  Ind.  App.  272, 
49 'X.  E.  459,  65  Am. 
St.   Rep.  405    833 

K 

Kaoser  v.  Bloomer,  85  Conn. 
209,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  710,  82 

Atl.   112    327,   328.     332 

Kaffenburgh,  Re,  188  X.  Y.  49, 
80  X.  E.  570,  affirming  115 
App.  Div.  346,  101  X.  Y.  S. 
507    ..1180,  1205,  1249,  1252, 

1292,  1296,  1303 
Kahl  V.  Love,  37  X.  J.  L.  5 ...  .  586 
Kalin    V.    Lesser,    97    Wis.    217, 

72  X.   W.  739    484,     493 

Kaiser  v.  Hancock,  106  Ga.  217, 

32   S.   E.    123    383,    391, 

395.   397,     398 
Kalnndor  v.  Xeidliold.  112  Midi. 

329,    70   X.   W.   892    395 

Kalmanowitz  v.  Kalinonowitz, 
108   App.   Div.  297,   95   X.   Y. 

R.  627    252 

Kam   v.  Stark.   1    Sawy.  547.   14 

Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,004' 250.     468 

Katiiilielo  v.  Wakefield,  11  Ha- 
waii   258    530 

Kane    V.    Ilnvwood.    (W    N.    C.    1 

117<»,   1272 

V.   Kosc.   S7    App.    Div.    101, 

84     X.     ^■.    S.     Ill,    !if- 

(irtpcd     177     N.    ^'.    ■")">7, 

69    X.    K.    1125 202. 

2(i;!,  i()r)i 


are  to  pages.] 

Kane  v.   \'an   \^ranken,  5   Paige 

(X.   Y.)    62    538 

Kanneherg  v.  Evangelical  Creed 
Cong.,  146  Wis.  610,  Ann. 
Cas.    1912C    370,    131    X.    W. 

353,  39  L.R.A.(X.S.)    138 896 

Kansas  City  El.  R.  Co.  v.  Serv- 
ice, 77  Kan.  316,  94  Pac.  262, 
14  L.R.A.(X.S.)   1105   ..   755,     756 
Kansas    City    Pac.    R.    Co.    v. 
Thaeher,  17  Kan.  92    ..    1000, 

1001,  1010,  1014,  1016,  1068 
Kansas,  etc..  Coal   Co.  v.  Gallo- 
Avav,   71   Ark.   351,   74   S.   W. 

521,  100  Am.  St.  Rep.  79 632 

Kaplan     v.     Berman,     37     Misc. 

502,  75  X.  Y.  S.   1002    ..105.     110 
Kapler     v.     Sumpter,     33    App. 

Cas.    404    237.    254,     200 

Karstendick,    Ex    p.,    93    U.    S. 

395.  23  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    889..    1135 
Kasminskv  v.  Raymond.  20  Tex. 

Civ.  App.  702, "51  S.  W.  51..      133 
Kast,   Re,    14   Pa.   Co.   Ct.   432. 

3   Pa.   Dist.    Ct.   302..        46 
V.  :Miller,  158  Cal.  723.  115 

Pac.  932    464 

Kauflfman  v.  Phillips,  154  la. 
542,    134   X.   W.   575    ..    672, 

755.  1017 
Kaufman,  Re.  113  X.  Y.  S.  525 

1043.    1044.    1066,  1070 

Re,  179   Fed.  552    313 

V.  Keenan.     13     Civ.     Proc. 

(X.  Y.)    225    1056 

Kaufmann    v.    Drexel,    56    Xeb. 

229,   76   X.   W.   559    443 

Kaut    V.    Kessler,    114    Pa.    St. 

603,  7  Atl.  586    169 

Keano  v.  Keane,  86  Hun  159,  33 

X.   Y.    S.   250    10.34 

Kearbv.  Ex  p..  35  Tex.  Crim. 
034,"  34    S.    W.    962    ..     1207, 

1281.  1302 
Keck  v.  Bode,  23  Oliio  Cir.  Ct. 

Rep.    413     220.     221 

V.  Bode,    13   Ohio   Cir.    Dec 

413    158 

Keefer  V.  Keefer,  (Ga.)   78  S.  E. 

462    874 

Keegan,  Re,  31  Fed.  129..  1239.  1240 
K(-('lni  V.  Keehn,  115  la.  407. 

88  X.  W.  907  1024 

Keeler   v.   Keeler,   51    llun    505, 

4  X,  Y.  S.  580 990.   1075 

Krru.    Re.    .39    ^lisc.    374.    79    X. 

^■.  S.  S57    574,     595 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cxlix 


[References 

Keenan  v.   Dorflinger,   19   How. 

Pr.    (N.   Y.)    15;]..8U2,  3015 
V.  Duilinger,    12    Abb.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    327  note 1030 

V.  Scott,  64  W.  Va.  137, 
61  S.  E.  806.... 231, 
232,  234,  286,  303,  575, 

702,   724,   748,    750,     782 
Keene  v.  Tribune  Assoc,  76  Hun 

488,    27    N.    Y.    S.    1045    134 

Keeney  v.  Henning,    (N.  J.)    55 

Atl.   88    847 

V.  Tredwell,    71    App.    Div. 
521,  75  N.  Y.  S.  1007.  .610,     615 
Keeton,    Re,    126    Fed.    426,    11 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    367     823 
V.  Com.,  108  S.  VV.  315,  .32 

Ky.    L.    Rep.    1164 

1114,  1115 
Kefauver   v.    Batdorf,    24    Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  664    510 

Kehl  V.  Hope  Oil  Mill,  etc.,  Co., 

77   Miss.  762,  27  So.  641 638 

Kehoe  v.  Miller,  10  Abb.  N.  Cas. 

(N.  Y.)   393  note  ..996,  1075,  1077 
Keir  v.  Quin,  12  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.) 

370   583 

Keirn   v.   Carson,    12    Smedes   & 

M.   (Miss.)   431   894 

Keith     V.     Fitzluigh,     15     Lea. 

(Tenn.)     50    1028 

V.  Keith,  25  Grant  Ch.   (N. 

C.)     110     909 

V.  Marcus,  181  Mass.  377, 
63  N.  E.  924.. 552,  584, 

944,     946 
V.  Wilson.    6    Mo.    435,    35 

Am.  Dec.  443    4.36 

Keithler  v.  State,   10  Smedes  & 

M.    (Miss.)    192   1099 

Keithley  v.  Foster.  132  111.  App. 

299     527,     528 

V.  Stevens,  238  111.  199,  87 
N.  E.  375,  128  Am.  St. 
Rep.  120,  affirming  142 

111.  App.  400    1282 

Kelerher  v.  Henderson,  203  Mo. 

498,  101   S.  W.  108:!    671,     685 

Keller   v.   Scott,   2    Smed.   &    M. 

(Miss.)   81   391,     393 

Kelley,     Re,     [1895]     1     Q.     B. 

(Eng.)     180    1320 

V.  Andrew   County,   43    Mo. 

338     ." 713.     714 

V.  Boettcher,  82  Fed.  794, 
49  U.  S.  App.  620.  27 
C.   C.  A.   177    1200 


are  to  pages.] 

Kelley     v.     Circuit    Judge,     79 

Mich.    392,    44    N.    W. 

925    265 

V.  Farmers,    etc.,    Bank,    6 

Ga.  App.  691,  65  S.  E. 

706   778 

V.  McMinniman,    58    N.    H. 

288    311 

V.  Repetto,    62    N.    J.    Eq. 

246,    49   Atl.    429    595 

V.  Richardson,      09      Mich. 

430,  37  N.  W.  514 

700,  779,  786,  789,  871, 

935,   936,   939,     940 
V.  Rilev,    106   Mass.   339,   8 

Am.    Rep.    336 245,     247 

Kellogg,   Re,  96   App.  Div.   608, 

88   N.   Y.   S.    1033,    af- 
firmed  180   N.   Y.   534, 

72  N.  E.  1144   ...   785,     789 
V.  Budlong,  7  How.  (Miss.) 

340   949 

V.  Gilbert,    10    Johns.     (N. 

Y.)     220,    6    Am.    Dec. 

335 411,   455,   459,     499 

V.  Howes.    93    Cal.   586.    29 

Pac.   230    851 

V.  Kellogg,  6  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

116    198 

V.  Norris,   10  Ark.  18.  .371 

372,     521 
V.  Potter.     11     Wend.     (N. 

Y.)     170    785 

V.  Reese,   48   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

621  mem.,  14  Civ.  Proc. 

283,  1  N.  Y.  S.  291   .  . 

781,   894,     903 
V.  Rowland,    40    App.    Div. 

416,  57   N.   Y'.   S.    1064 

889,     943 
V.  Stoddard,    89    App.    Div. 

137,  84  X.  Y.  S.   1015, 
reversing   40    Misc.    92, 

81  N.  Y.  S.  275   910 

Kellv,  Re,  12  Daly   (N.  Y.)    110     717 
Kelly,   Re,   59   N.   Y.   595.. 537, 

1322,  1326 

Re,  62  N.  Y.  198    537,   1203 

V.  Allen.  212  Mass.  327,  99 

N.  E.  273    .  .    581,  604,     608 
V.  Benedict,    5    Rob.     ( La. ) 

138,  39    Am.    Dec.    530     426 
V.  Chica'jro,  etc..  R.  Co..  113 

Mc^App.  468,  87  S.  W. 

583    384,     405 


cl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[EcferencL'S 

Kelly  V.  Cummens.  143  la.   148. 
20  Ann.  Cas.  1283,  121 

N.   W.  540    224 

V.  Ferguson,  5  Okla.  Crim. 

31G,  114  Pac.  631  1114 

V.  Herb,  147  Pa.  St.  563, 

23  Atl.  889  11,   29 

V.  Horsely,  147  Ala.  508, 
41  So.  902  ..  237,  261, 

202,  1024,  1029,  1051 
V.  Houghton,  59  Wis.  400, 

18  N.  W.  326  953 

V,  Kelly,  86  Wis.  170.  56 

N.  W.  637  ..  409,  671,  687 
V.  New  York  City  R.  Co., 
122  App.  Div.  467,  106 

N.  Y.  S.  894 539, 

543,  1084 
V.  New   York   City   R.   Co., 

102  N.  Y.  S.'741    ....      149 
V.  Ning    Yung    Benev.    As- 
soc.,   2    Cal.   App.    460, 

84  Pac.  321   233, 

890,   902,     944 
V.  Wright,  05  Wis.  236.  26 
N.  W.  610   .  .    380,  385, 

392,  394,     390 
Kelsav    v.    Taylor,    56    Ore.    13, 

107'  Pac.  609    368 

Kelsev    v.    jMackay,     65    Wash. 

no".  117  Pac.  7]'4   743 

Kelso  V.  Stigar,  75  Md.  376,  24 

Atl.   18    416,  418,     424 

Kemerrer  v.  Markle,  14  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.   493,   7   Kulp.   262,   3   Pa. 

Dist.   Ct.  052    417,     432 

Kemp  V.  Burt,  1  N.  &  M.  262,  4 
B.    &   Ad.    424,    24    E.    C.    L. 

93    554,     569 

Kemper  v.  Fort,  219  Pa.  St.  85, 
12  Ann.  Cas.  1022,  07  Atl. 
991,  123  Am.  St.  Rep.  623,  13 

l..U.A.(X.S.)    820    534 

Kendall  V.  Niehnlir,  58  How.  Pr. 
(  X.   \.)    15(i.  45  Super. 

Ct.    542     267.     26S 

V.   U.  S..  7   Willi.   113,   19  i:. 

S.     (  I.,    ed.)     85    980 

Kciieti  V.  liili.  38  .\.  Br\in8.  342      .lO  1 
Kcniiard   v.   Kcnnaid,   (i3   N.    II. 

303    336 

Kennedy,  I!.-.  120  I'a.  S(.  497, 
14  Atl.  397,  6  .'\iii.  St. 
Il(|).    724    614.     620 


are  to  pages.] 

Kennedy  v.  Brown,  13  C.  B.  N. 
'  S.  677.   696,   106   E.   C. 

677,   696 689,   691, 

693,  698,     868 
y.  Carrick,   18  Misc.  38,  40 

N.   Y.   S.    1127    983 

V.  Richardson,  70  Ind.  524  775 
V.  Steele,  35  Misc.  105,  71 

N.  Y.  S.  237  ....981,  1082 
Kennedy's  Disbarment,  178  Pa. 
St.  232,  35  Atl.  995  ..  1220, 

1224,  1333 
Kenney,  Re,  155  App.  Diy.  890, 

140  N.  Y.  S.  314  1260 

y.  Apgar,  93   N.  Y.  539    .  .    1081 
Kenny    y.    Clarkson,     1    Johns. 
(N.    Y.)     394,    3    Am. 

Dec.   336    337 

y.  Hazeltine,       6       Humph. 

(Tenn.)    62    392,     394 

Kent   V.    Chapman,    18   W.    Va. 

485    392.     394 

V.  Ricards.   3   Md.   Ch.   392 

391,  416,  450,  479,  498,     508 
Kentucky  Bank  y.  Combs,  7  Pa. 

St.    543    789,     927 

Kentucky    Trust    Co.    y.    Louis- 
ville   Third    Nat.    Bank,    100 

Ky.  232,  50  S.  W.  43    773 

Kenyon  y.  Schreck,  52  111.  382 

415,     442 
Keoughan  y.  Equitable  Oil  Co., 

116  La.  773,  41  So.  88 512 

Kepees,  Re,  123  N.  Y.  S.  872.  .    1205 
Kephart    y.    Zeek,    151    Pa.    St. 
423.   25    Atl.    106,    31    W.   N. 

C.  89    369 

Kepler  v.  Jessup,   11   Ind.  App. 
241,   37    N.   E.   055,   38 
N.   E.  826    .  .    548,  552.     955 
y.  Klingensmith,     50      Ind. 

434    1221 

Kepley  y.  Irwin.  14  Neb.  300.  15 

N.  W.  719    417,     443 

Ker  y.   Paschal,    1    Tex.   Unrep. 

Cas.  692   769,     785 

Kermott  v.  Aver,   11    Mich.    181 

334,     337 
Kern    v.    Chicago,    etc..    R.    Co., 

201    Fed.  404 457. 

995.  1065 
V.  Kern,  154  Ind.  29.  55 

X.  \<:.    1004  210 

V.  Strashcrger,    71    111.    413     56l 
Kcni^dod   V.  .I:ick.  :iS   iMisc.  309. 
77   X.  V.  S    S(i5   1(118 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cli 


[Rpforcnct'S 

Kerr       v.       Chillicothc       Bank, 

Wright    (Ohio)    737    ..      537 
V.  Kerr,    So    Kan.   460,    IIG 

Pac.  880    210 

V.  Kerr,  41   N.  Y.  272    440 

V.  Ileecc,  27  Kan.  4:!!!  ...  416 
V.  State,  3,j  Ind.  28S  ....  143 
V.   Waller.     104     Anp.     Div. 

45.  03  N.  Y.  S.  311    . .      110 
Kersey  v.   Garten,   77    Mo.    G45, 
5    Kv.    L.    Rep.    2,    16 
Cent!  L.  J.  472   .  .   793, 

794,     879 
V.  O'Dav,   173  Mo.   560.   73 

S.  W.  481    900,     983 

Keteliam   v.   Thorp.    91    111.   611     008 
Ketchum,  Ex  p.,  4  Hill   (N.  Y.) 

564   617 

V.  Harlovve.  84  Mo.  225 ..  .      562 
Ketterer  Mfg.  Co.,  Re,  155  Fed. 
987,     19     Am.     Bankr. 

Rep.    646     820 

Re,   156   Fed.  719    820 

Key  V.  U.  S.  Bank,  1   Havw.  & 
H.  74,  14  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 

7,746    1053 

V.  Vattier,   1   Ohio   132 

657,  658,  659.  661.  672,     755 
Keyes  v.  McKerrow.   180  ]\Iass. 
261,    62    N.    E.    259.. 

308,     313 
V.  McKirrow,  9  Am.  Bankr. 

Rep.  322    819 

V.  State,    122    Ind.    527.    23 
N.    E.    1097. .146,    147, 

1101,  1106 
Kidd  V.  Davis,  5  Dowl.    (Eng.) 

568    131 

V.  Hnff,  105  Ga.  209.  31   S. 

E.   430 307,   383,     405 

V.  Williams    132    Ala.    140, 
31    So.  458,    56    L.R.A. 

879    283.   284,   700, 

723,  742,  743.  748,  749,     918 
Kiddle  v.  Kiddle.  90    Neb.    248, 
Ann.  Cas.  191 3A  796.   133  N. 
W.  181,  36  L.R.A.  (X.S.)   1001     909 
Kiefer  v.  Lara,  56  Wash.  43,  104 

Pac.   1102    884 

Kier  v.   Quin,    4    Walk.     (Pa.) 

339    524 

Kikuchi    v.    Ritchie,    202    Fed. 

857,  121  C.  C.  A.  215 922 

Kilbourne  v.  Wiley,  124  Mich. 
370,  83  N.  W.  99,  7  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  269 1042,  1047,  1081 


are  to  pages.] 

Kilgore,  Re,  17  Pliila.   (Pa.)   14, 

17,  41  Leg.  Int.  104.  .  .  54 
Re,    17    Phila.     (Pa.)     615, 

616,  41  Leg.  Int.  242.  .  55 
Re,  14  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  30.  .  47 
Re,  14  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)    255 

47,  53,       55 
Re,   14   W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)  466 

46,  50,  54,       55 
Re,  17  W.  X.  C.   (Pa.)   475, 

5   Atl.   872    46 

Re,  17  W.  X.  C.  562,  14  W. 
N.    C.    466,  2  Del.  Co. 

Rep.  105 45,       50 

Kilgour  V.  Crawford,  51  111.  249     848 
Killian    v.    State,   72  Ark.   137, 

78  S.  W.  766 84 

Killip    V.    Empire    Mill    Co.,    2 

Xcv.  34    529 

Kilitts   V.    State,    10    Ohio   Cir. 
Dec.    722,    19    Ohio    Cir.    Ct. 

740     1126,  1127 

Kilmer  v.  Gallaher,  112  la.  583, 
84  X.  W.  697,  84  Am.  St.  Rep. 

358     383.     494 

Kimball  v.  Perrv.  15  Vt.  414.  .  .      506 
V.  Sweet,  170  Mass.  538,  51 

X.  E.  116    465 

Kimball    Co.   v.    Payne,   9    Wyo. 

441,  64  Pac.  673 352,  451, 

453,     462 
Kimble  v.   Franklin   County,  32 

Ind.  App.  377,  06  X.  E."l023  852 
Kimbro  v.  Waller,  21  Ala.  376  605 
Kimmel  v.   Bittner,   62   Pa.   St. 

203    573,  576,     577 

Kinclieloe  v.  Merriman,  54  Ark. 
557,  16  S.  W.  578,  26  Am.  St. 

Rep.  60    906 

Kindt,    Ex   p.,    32    Ore.   474,   52 

Pac.    187     1210,   1205 

King,  Re,  168  (X.  Y.)  53,  60  X. 
E.  1054,  modifying  61 
App.  Div.  152,  70  X.  Y. 

S  356    1003,  1011, 

1018,  1060,  1061,  1066 
Re.  54  Ohio  St.  415,  43  X. 

E.  686  1339 

Re.  8  Q.  B.  129,  55  E.  C.  L. 

129  1268,  1278 

V.  Apple  River  Power  Co., 
131  Wis.  575,  11  Ann. 
Cas.  951,  111  N.  W. 
668.  120  Am.  St.  Rep. 

1003 633,  635,  637, 

640,  642 


clii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

King  V.  Ashlev.  179  N.  Y.  281, 
72  X."  E.  106,  affirming 
190  App.   Div.   143,   89 

X.  Y.  S.  482    170 

V.  Barber.  61  la.  674,  17  X. 

W.    SB    832 

V.  Barrett.  11  Ohio  St.  261 

224,  225,     226 
V.  Burr,  20  .Jolins.    (X.  Y.) 

274    10 

V.  Cartee,  1  Pa.  St.  147...      492 
V.  Erskins.  116  La.  480,  40 

So.    844    640 

V.  Flvnn,  37  Hun    (X.    Y.) 

329    852 

V.  Fourchv,     47     La.     Ann. 

354,   14   So.  814..  .563,     570 
V.  King,    104    La.    420,    29 

So.   205    490 

V.  Law    Society,    8    British 

Columbia    356    60 

V.  McKissich,  126  Fed.  215  533 
V.  Pinsoneault,  22  L.  C. 
Jur.  58,  6  Rev.  Leg. 
703.  44  L.  J.  P.  C.  42, 
L.  R.  6  P.  C.  (Eng.) 
245,  32  L.  T.  X.  S.  174. 

23  W.  R.  576 401 

V.  Pope,  28  Ala.  601.  .  .371, 

709,  711,     900 
V.  State,  43  Fla.  211,  31  So. 
254. .1094,    1099,    1103, 

1106,  1111,  1113,  1121 
King     of     Spain     v.     Oliver,     2 
Wash.  429,   14  Fed.   Cas.  Xo. 

7,  814   423.  424,     435 

Kingsbury  v.  Garden,  45  Super. 

Ct.    (X.  Y.)    224 638 

V.  Joseph,  94  Mo.  App.  298, 
68  S.  W.  93.. 371,  374, 

710,  781,  941,     956 
V.  Yniostra,  59  Ala.  320.  .  .      446 
Kingston    v.    Kineaid,    1    Wash. 

454,  14  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,822..      393 
King.ston  Bank  v.  Roosa,  2  How. 

Pr.    (X.    Y.)    8    521 

Kinney     v.     McClure,     1     Rand. 

(Ky.)    287    604 

V.  Tabor,  62   Mich.  517.   29 

X.  W.  86,  512.  ..  .  lo.'il.    105.-. 
Kinsey  v.  Stcwai-t,    14   Tex.  4.-)7 

siis.  s;;!i,  1002 
Kintz    V.    II.    .1.    Mriix     Lumlicr 
Co.,  47    liid.   App.    IT."..   '.M    N. 

K.   802    33 1 

Kijip  V.    Iliipp,  7   Civ.   I'roc.    (N. 

\.)    31(1 1030,    1033,   1086 


are  to  pages.] 

Kipp  v.  Rapp,  2  How.  Pr.  X.  S. 
(X.     Y.)     169,     7     Civ. 

Pro.  385    860,  1061 

Kirbv,  Re,   10  S.  D.  322,  73  X. 
W.   92,   39   L.R.A.   856, 

859     1268-1 2G9,  1275 

Re,  10  S.  D.  414,  73  X.  W. 

907.  39  L.R.A.  856 

1179,    1267-1268,    1275.  1321 

Re,  84  Fed.  606 12(19,  1275 

V.  Kirby,    1    Paige    (X.   Y.) 

565    1034 

V.  La   Dow,    102   Mich.   345, 

60  X.  W.  761   1046 

V.  State,   08  Misc.  626,   125 

X.  Y.  S.  742   1147 

V.  Western    Wheeled    Scra- 
per Co.,  9  S.  D.  623,  70 

X.  W.  1052 893 

Kircliheimer  v.  Barrett,  125  111. 

App.  50 .340,  347,     348 

Kirchner  v.  Schmid,  7  Misc.  455, 

25  X.  Y.  S.  85 362, 

303,     368 
V.  Smith,  61  W.  Va.  434,  11 
Ann.  Cas.  870.  58  S.  E. 

014    184 

Kirk  V.  Breed,  4  Ohio  Dee.  403, 

3  Ohio  X.  P.  122 842 

V.  Glover,    5     Stew.    &    P. 
(Ala.)     340.. 300,    375, 

370,  377,     391 
V.  Gover,  96  S.  W.  824,  29 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1040 562 

V.  Wiener-I..oeb         Laundry 
Co..     120    La.    820,    45 

So.   738    643 

V.  Wolf   Mfg.    Co..    118    111. 

567,  8  X.  E.  815 780 

Kirk's   Appeal,   87    Pa.   St.   243, 

30  Am.  Rep.  357 409 

Kirkiiini      v.      Whaley,      1      Ld. 

Haym.    (  Kng.)    27 115 

Kirklin      v.     Atlas     Sav.,     etc., 

Assoc,  00  S.   \V.   149 209,     270 

Kirkman  v.  \'anlier,  7  Ala.  224  595 
Kirksey  v.  .lones,  7  Ala.  023.  .  .  .  453 
Kirschhaum    v.    Scott.    35    Xeb. 

199.  52  X.  W.   1112    443 

Kisliug  v.  Shaw,  33  Cal.  425,  91 
Am.  Dec.  044    .  .273,  277.  282, 

283.  284,     285 
Kissack  v.  Hourke,  132  HI.  App. 

.-{(id    205 

l\issam  v.   Bremerman,  44  ^Vpp. 

Div.  588,  01  X.  V.  S.  75.  .504,     565 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cliii 


[Itrfcreiiccs 

Kissam     v.     Squires,     102     App. 

Div.  5:56,  92  X.  V.  S.  873 

274,  27.5,  .Tlli,     559 
Kissclbiirsli.   Re.   153   App.   Div. 

884,   137   N.  Y.   S,   1060 1320 

Kis.sick  V.   Hunter,   184   Pa.   St. 
174,  39  Atl.  83,  41   W.  N.  C. 

377   392.  409,  455,     482 

Kitterniaster  v.  Brosaard,  105 
Mich.    219,    03    N.    W.    75,    55 

Am.  SL.  Rep.  4:17 773 

KiHredge  v.  Armstrong,  11  ()!iio 
Dec.    (Reprint)    061,  28  Cine. 

L.  Bui.  249 786,  787,  887, 

922,   924,   926,   936,   937,   939, 

941,     942 
Kitz    V.    Buckm aster,    45    App. 

Div.  283,  Gl  N.  Y.  S.  64.  .162,     176 
Klatzie.  Re,  142  App.  Div.  352, 

126  N.  Y.  S.  842 1253 

Klein,  Re,  155  N.  Y.  696,  50  N. 

E.   1119    58 

Re,  101  N.  Y.  S.  603.. 577, 

609,   016,  620,  1087 
V.  Borclicrt,   89   Minn.    377, 
95   N.    W.   215..  -.272, 

273,  281 
V.  East  River  Electric 
Light  Co.,  182  N.  Y. 
27,  74  N.  E.  495,  re- 
versing 90  App.  Div. 
02,  so"  N.  Y.  S.  104..  .  343 
Kleinsmith    v.    Hamlin,     (Tex.) 

00  S.  W.  994    638 

Kling  V.  Tunstall,  124  Ala.  268, 

27  So.  420 170 

Klingensmith  v.  Kepler,  41  Ind. 

341     1221,  1283 

Knadler  v.  Sharp,  36  la.  232..      085 
Knapp,  Re,  59  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.) 
367,  8  Abb.  N.  Cas.  308 

754,  765,  767,     965 
Re,  85  N.  Y.  284.  .611,  612, 

613,  618,  840,  1018,  1037 
V.  Runals,  37  Wis.  135.  .  .  .      341 
Kneeland  v.  Hurdy,  97  N.  Y.  S. 

957    710.  889,     899 

Knickerbocker  Inv.  Co.  v.  Voor- 
hees,  128  App.  Div.  639,  112 
N.  Y.  842.  .  .1043,  1063,  1064, 

1084,  1086 
Kniglit,  Re.  5  Am.  Bankr.  Rep. 

560   note    819 

V.  Board  of  Com'rs  of  Clay 
County,  (Ind.)  101  N. 
E.  loio    146 


are  to  pages.] 

Knight    v.    ['user,    6    Ohio    Dec. 
(Reprint)    772,   8    Am. 

L.    Rec.    28     371,     464 

V.  Killebrew,   SO   N.   C.  400     605 

v.  Low,  15  Ind.  374    150 

V.  People,    192    111.    170,    61 

N.  E.  371    224 

V.  Quarles,    2    Brod.    &    B. 
102,   6    E.    C.    L.   55,   4 

Moo.  C.  PL  532   591 

V.  Russ,    77     Cal.    410,     19 

Pac.  098 229,   705, 

707,  878,  917,     931 
V.  Whitmore,   125  Cal.   198, 

57    Pac.   891    918,     953 

Knights  V.  State,  58  Neb.  225, 
78  N.  "W.  508,  70  Am.  St.  Rep. 

78    1111 

Knott,  Re,  71  Cal.  584,  12  Pac. 

780 1180,  1297 

V.  Kirby,    10   S.   D.   30,    71 

N.  W.  138    528,     545 

Knowles    v.    Frawley,    84    Wis. 

119,  54  N.  W.  107    539 

Knowlton  v.   Plantation   No.  4, 

14   Me.  20    410,     431 

Knox   V.   O'Brien,    3    Ir.    Eq.    62     537 
V.  Randall,  24  Minn.  479..      258 
Koeber  v.  Somers,  108  Wis.  497, 
84  N.  W.  991,  52  L.R.A.  512 

209,    216,    220,     221 
Koedt    V.    Joseplisen,     158     111. 

App.  388   931 

Koeing  v.    Harned,    (N.   J.)    13 

Atl.   236    014,   784,   788,     955 

Kohle  v.  Plummer,   (Tex.)   74  S. 

W\  786  747 

Kohn  V.  Washer,  69  Tex.  67,  6  S. 

W.  551 129 

Kompass  v.  Light,  122  Mich.  86, 

80   N.  W.   1008    033 

Konta  V.  St.  Louis  Stock  Exch., 
150  Mo.  App.  617,  131  S.  W^ 

380    476 

Koons  V.  Beach,  147  Ind.  137.  45 
N.  E.  601,  46  N.  E.  587.. 971, 
979,  985,  995,  999,  1000,  1010, 

1018,  1019,  1033,  1081 
Kopper  V.  Willis,  9  Daly  (N. 

Y.)  400  860,  861,  862 

Koppler    V.    Sumpter,    33    App. 

Cas.    (D.   C.)    404    1061 

Korman  v.  Grand  l^dge,  etc.,  44 

Misc.  564,  90  N.  Y.  S.  120    .  .      441 
Kortli  V.  State,  46  Neb.  031.  05 
N.  W.  792   1099,  1121 


cliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Kouns  V.  Draper,  43  Mo.  225.  .  . 

1093,  ]125 
Kowalskv,  Re,  (Cal.)  35  Pac.  77  1248 
Kraimer"v.  State,  117  Wis.  350, 

93   N.  W.   1097    1103 

Krakauer,  Re,  33  Misc.  674.  68 

X.  Y.  S.  935   259 

Kramer  v.  Gerlach,  28  Misc.  525, 

59  N.  Y.  S.  855    444 

V.  Grant,  00  :Misc.  109,  111 

X.  Y.  S.  709    364 

V.  Gnstin,  53  Mich.  291,  19 

X.  W.  1   340 

V.  Kister,  187  Pa.  St.  227, 
40  Atl.  1008,  44  L.R.A. 
432,   42   W.   N.   C.   392 

208,     209 
Krause  v.  Bishop,  18  S.  D.  298, 
100  X.  W.  434    .  .    633, 

634,  635,     640 
V.  Dorrance,  10  Pa.  St.  462, 

51  Am.  Dec.  490.. 522,  599 
V.  Hampton.  11  la.  457  .  .  435 
V.  Lloyd.  100  la.  666.  69  X. 

W.  1062   515 

Kreitzer  v.  Crovatt,  94  Ga.  694, 

21  S.  E.  585   296 

Krekeler  v.  Tliaule,  49  How.  Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    138    259,     265 

Kretsinger    v.    Weber,    43    Xeb. 

4G8,  61  X.  W.  718   1077 

Kreuzen  v.  Fortv-socond  St.  M. 
&  St.  X.  Ave.  R.  Co.,  13  X.  Y. 

S.  588    1003 

Krieger,  Ex  p.,  7  Mo.  App.  367     1231 
V.  Krieger,  221   111.  479,  77 
N.  E.  909,  reversing  120 
III.  App.  034,  aflirniing 

121  111.  App.  11    242 

Kristeller,    Re,    154    App.    Div. 

556,  139  X.  Y.  S.  64   .  .   1250,     1270 
Krone  v.  Klotz,  3  App.  Div.  587, 
25    Civ.    Proc.    320,    3    X.    Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  36,  38  N.  Y.  S.  225 

994.   1018 
Kronschnable   v.    Knoblaucli.   '21 

Minn.  56   357,     508 

Kross,   Re,   96    Fed.   816,   3   Am. 

Rankr.  Rep.    187    ..    817,  824.     826 
Kruegel   v.  Cockrcll.   151    S.   W. 

.352    119 

V.  ]\liirpby,     (Te.x.)     126    S. 

W.    343     .525,      531 

Kniger,     Itc,     130    Cal.    621,    63 

Pac.   31    915 


are  to  pages.] 

Kruse  v.  Rabe.  80  X'.  J.  L.  378, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912A  477,  79  Atl. 
316,   33    L.R.A. (X.S.)    469    ..      123 

Kneliii  V.  Svracuse  Rapid  Tran- 
sit R.  Co',  104  App.  Div.  580, 
93  X.  Y.  S.  883,  aHirmed  186 
X.  Y.  567,  79  X.  E.  1109,  pre- 
viously reversed  on  other 
grounds  183  X.  Y.  456,  76  X. 

E.  589    980,  1045,  1049, 

1064,   1066,  1082 

Kuh  .v.   Barnett,   57   Super.   Ct. 

(X.   Y.)    234,   6  X.  Y.  S.  881      131 

Kuhland  v.  Sedgwick,  17  Cal. 
123    132 

Kuhn  v.  Douns,  (la.)   136  X.  W. 

199    848 

V.  Hunt,    2    Brev.     (S.    C.) 

164 571,     602 

Kuhne  v.  Dailv,  23  Hun  (X. 
Y.)   282    '. 610 

Kult  V.  Xelson,  25  Misc.  238,  55 
X.  Y.  S.  56,  modifying  24 
Misc.   20,   53   X.   Y.   S.   95    .  . 

784,  860,     864 

Kunath  v.  Bremer,  53  App.  Div. 
271,  65  X.  Y.  S.  830 261,  1051 

Kunkel  v.  Spooner,  9  Md.  4C2, 
66   Am.   Dec.   332    453 

Kuntz  V.  Kuntz,  80  X.  J.  Eq. 
429,  83  Atl.  787    907 

Kurrus  v.  Mayo,  4  111.  App.  106     458 

Kusterer  v.  Beaver  Dam,  56 
Wis.  471,  14  X.  W.  617,  43 
Am.  Rep.  725  .  .  729,  737,  755, 

805,   1011,  1043 

Kyle,  Ex  p..   1   Cal.  331    ..    987,  1031 

Kyser    v.    Wells,    60    Ind.    261 

598,     599 

Kyte,  Re,  174  Fed.  867,  23  Am. 
Bankr.   Rep.  414    628,     029 


La    Barre    v.    Bent,    154    "Mich. 
520,   118  X.  W.  6,  15  Detroit 

!>eg.    X.    822     1110 

Labuuve's     Succession,     34     La. 

Ann.    1187    246,   802,  803,  910 

Lablaiiie  v.  Kirkpatrick,  8  Civ. 

I'roc.    (X.   Y.)    256    996 

Laccy  v.   Davis,    (la.)    98  X.  W. 

366    (185 

v.   \\ai>les,  28  La.  Ann.  158     294 
v.  W  illson,  83   Ind.  570    .  .      725 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clv 


[References 

Laclu'iimeyer  v.  Laeheiimeyer,  6.5 

How.  Pr.  (iV.  Y.)  422  ". 247 

Lacher  v.  Gordon,  127  App.  Div. 

]40,  ]11  X.  Y.  S.  2S3  .371 

Laclede  Bank  v.  Kcelcr,  10!)  111. 

.38.5    '. 285 

Lacoste  v.  Roberts,  1 1  La.  Ann. 

33    488 

La    C'otts     V.     Quertermous,    84 
Ark.   376,   105   S.   W.   872    .. 

242,     243 
Ladd  V.  Ferguson,  9  Ore.  180   .  . 

724,   735,  1056 
V.  Lynn,  2  M.  &  W.   (Eng.) 

205    910 

La.  Framboise  v.  Grow,  56  111. 

197    1024,    1020,   1031,  1053 

Laird  v.  Laird,    (X.  J.)    3  Atl. 

339    260 

V.  Taylor,  66  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 

1*39     634 

Lake  v.  Ingham,  3  Vt.  158 997 

Lake  City  Electric  Light  Co.  v. 
McCrary,    132    Iowa   624,   110 

X.  W.  19   416 

Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rook- 
er,  13  Ind.  App.  600,  41  X.  E. 

470  341 

Lake  of  the  Woods  ^Milling  Co. 
V.   Ralston,   20   Quebec  K.   B. 

536    631 

Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haber- 
man  Mfg.  Co.,  87   Fed. 

563    178,     179 

V.  Haberman   Mfg.   Co.,   93 

Fed.  197    307,  314, 

315,  319 
Lamar  v.  Hall,  129  Fed.  79,  03 
C.    C.    A.    521,    reversing    129 

Fed.  141   841.  842,  844,     846 

Lamar   Ins.   Co.   v.    Pennell,    19 

111.  App.  212    785 

Lamb,    Re,    105    App.    Div.    402, 
94  X.  Y.  S.  331   ..1179, 

1180,  1265 
Re,  23  Q.  B.  D.   (Eng.)  477 

1320,  1333 
V.  Webb,    151   Cal.    451,   91 

Pac.  102,  646   1147 

V.  Williams,  1  Salk.  (Eng.) 

89,  0  :Mod.  82   459,     498 

V.  Wilson,  3  Xeb.  (unof- 
ficial) Rep.  .")n5,  97  X. 
W.  325,  reversing  92  X. 
W.  167    248,  833,     834 


are  to  pages.] 

Lamb  v.  Wilson,  3  Xeb.  (unof- 
ficial) Rep.  505,  97  X. 
W.  325,  rehearing  de- 
nied, 70  Xeb.  729,  98  X^. 

W.   37    250,  833,     834 

Lamberson,  Re,  63  Barb.    (Ky.) 

297    1018 

Lambert    v.    Gillette,    24    Wash. 

720,  64  Pac.  784.  .375,     37!) 
V.  Sandford   2   Blackf.   137, 

18   Am.   Dec.    149    45{> 

V.  Xew  Orleans,  6  La.  731     368 
Lambuth,  Re,  18  Wash.  478,  51 

Pac.  1071   1109,  1178, 

1196,  1198,  1199 
Lamont   v.    Solano   County,    49 

Cal.    158    ■ 713 

V.  Washington,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
2  Mackey  (D.  C.)  502, 
47  Am.  Rep.  208  .  .804, 

1009,    1040,  1076 
Lamoreux  v.  Morris,  4  How.  Pr. 

(N.   Y.)    245    543,   545,     546 

L'Amoureaux  v.  Vandenburgh,  7 
Paige    (X.    Y.)    316,   32   Am. 

Dec.   635    515 

Lamphier  v.  Phipos,  8  C.  &  P. 

475,  34  E.  C.  L.  487 552 

Lamprecht    v.    Bien,    125    App. 
Div.    811,    110   X.    Y.    S.    128 

584,     .589 
Lamprey  v.  Langevin,  25  Minn. 

122    883 

Lanagan      v.      Wayne      Circuit 
Judge,  170  Mich.  435,  136  X. 

W.  398 257 

Lanasa  v.   State,   109  Md.   602, 

71   Atl.   10.58    177 

Lancy   v.   Havender,    146   Mass. 

615,  16  X.  E.  464 670 

Landa  v.  Obert,  45  Tex.  539 ...  .      850 
V.  Shook,    87    Tex.    609,    30 

S.  W.  536 831,     834 

V.  Shook,    (Tex.)    31   S.  W. 

57   801 

Landis  v.  Wintermute,  40  Wash. 

673,  82  Pac.   1000    274,     280 

Landley  v.  Oxford,   1   M.  &   W. 

(Eng.)   508 347 

Landrcth    v.    Powell.    122   Tenn. 

195,    121    S.   W.   500 1027,   10.50 

Landro    v.    Great    X'orthern    R. 

Co.,    (Minn.)    141  X.  W.  1103     608 
Landry's     Succession,     116     La. 

970,  41  So.  220 079 

Landsberger  v.  Gorham,   5   Cal. 

450     172,     225 


clvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Landyskowski      v.      Lark,      108 

Mich.  500,  66  N.  VV.  371 .  .46!»,     476 
Lane  v.   Black,   21   W.   Va.   617 

282,  286,     750 
V.  Brinson,   12  Ga.  App.  700, 

78  S.  E.  725    .503,  608,     617 

V.  Hallum,  38  Ark.  385 

1026,  1029,  1081 
V.  Storke,    10   Cal.   App.   347, 

101   Pac.   937    564,     589 

Lane,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Taylor,  80  Ark. 
469,  97  S.  W.  441,  7  L.R.A. 

(N.  S.)  924 779,  869 

Lang,  Re,  127  Fed.  755,  11  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  794  .  .819,  824 
V.  Constance,  (Ky. )  46  S. 

W.  693  847,  848 

V.  Ingalls  Zinc  Co.,  (Tenn.) 

49  S.  W.  288    168, 

170,  200,     202 
Lanirbein  v.  Schneider,  27  Abb. 

N.  Cas.  228,  16  N.  Y.  S.  943     909 
Langdon  v.  Castleton,  30  Vt.  285 

250,     959 

V.  Conlin,    67    Neb.    243,    2 

Ann.    Cas.    834,    93    N. 

W.    389,    108    Am.    St. 

Rop.  043,  60  L.R.A.  429     758 

V.  Godfrey,     4      F.     &      F. 

(Eng.)    445.. 556,    559,     585 
V.  Potter,  13  Mass.  319,  320 

251,   388,   394,     500 
Lange  v.  Perley,  47  Mich.  352, 

11  N.  W.  19.3  182 

Langmade  v.  Glenn,  57  Ga.  525     623 
Langslow.  Re,  167  N.  Y.  314,  60 
N.  E.  590,  modifying  52  App. 
Div.    635,   66    N.    Y.   S.    1135 

614,  1260 
Langston  v.  Roby,  68  Pa.  406  1056 
Languille  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App. 

312   96,  98,  99,     103 

Lanning  v.  Christy,  30  Ohio  St. 

115,    27    Am.   Rep.   431 533 

Lamphier  v.  Phipos,  8   C.  &   P. 

475,  3  E.  C.  L.  487 554 

Lansing  v.  Easton,  7    I'aige   (N. 

Y. )    364   630 

V.  I'nsign,  62  How.  I'r.   (N. 

V.)    .".(;3    SSO,      980 

V.   McKillu].,     7     Cow.     (N. 

\.)     4\{;    470 

Lanston  Monotype  Mach.  Co.  v. 
ISTcrgcntlialer  TJnctvpc  Co., 
147  F<m1.  H7I,  iillinncl  154 
Fed.  42,  83  C.  C.  A.   154    sr.O 


are  to  pages.] 

Lanum    v.    Patterson,    143    III. 

App.  242,  248   352,     356 

V.  Patterson,   151    111.  App. 

36   213,  214,     222 

Lapaugh  v.  Wilson,  43  Ilun  619, 

6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  624 245,     246 

Lapetina     v.     Santangolo,     124 
App.  Div.  519,   108   N.  Y.   S. 

975   123 

Larev  v.  Baker,  86  Ga.  468,  12 

S.^E.  684  293,  294,  301,  949 

Large  v.  Coyle,  (Pa.)  12  Atl. 

343  951,  952 

Larkins  v.  Paxton,  2  Myl.  &  K. 

(Eng.)  320  842 

Earned  v.  Dubuque,  86  la.  166, 

53  N.  W.  105  728,  739, 

810,  1046,  1047,  1050 
Laroe  v.  Sugar  Loaf  Dairy  Co., 
87  App.  Div.  585,  84  N.  Y. 

S.  009  954,  955 

Laroque  v.  Candolle,  4  Md.  Ch. 

347    894 

Larseherd   v.   Kittell,    142   Wis. 
172,    20    Ann.    Cas.    576,    125 

N.  W.  442    774 

Lartigue  v.  White,  25  La.  Ann. 

291     784,     964 

Larzelere  v.  Starkweather,  38 

Mich.  96  269 

Lash,  Re,  150  App.  Div.  467,  135 

N.  Y.  S.  370 1222,  1229, 

1317,  1318,  1319 
Lasley  v.  Lackey,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

896  208,  304,  381 

La      Societe      Canadienne-Fran 
caise,  etc.,  v.  Daveluy,  20  Can. 

Sup.   Ct.  449    512 

La  Societe,  etc.  v.  Morris,  Man. 

Unrep.  Cas.  1    664 

Later  v.  Haywood,  12  Idaho  78, 

85  Pac.  494 189 

Latiirop    v.    Amherst    Bank.    9 

Met.   (Mass.)   489   761 

v.  Ilallett,    20    Colo.    Apj). 
207,  77  Pac.  1095.  .371, 

376,  379,  709,  711,     983 
V.  Judivini,  2  Cow.  (X.  Y.) 

484    473 

V.  Mathers.    143    App.    Div. 

370,    128   N.   Y.   S.  492     641 
].iiittiinnre  v.  Tarrnnt  (\)Uii(y.  57 
'i('\.  Civ.  App.  Oil).   124  S.  W. 

20.")     1  123,    1124 

i.iiliicli    \.    Pasheraiitc,     1     Snllc. 

(Eng.)    8(i    403,   489,     498 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clvii 


[Rcforences 

Lauer  v.  Banning,  140  la.  319, 

118  N.  W.  446    157 

Lauglilin  v.  Clawson,  27  I'a.  St. 

328    047 

V.  Excelsior  Powder  Mfg. 
Co.,   153  Mo.  App.  508, 

134  S.  VV.  110 9!)7,  1080 

Lavender  v.  Atkins,  20  Neb.  200, 

29   N.    W.    407    249,    804, 

1047,  1079 
Lavenson  v.  Wise,  131  Cal.  369, 

63  Pac.  622  738,  910 

Lavin  v.  Cook   County,  245  111. 

490,  92  N.  E.  291    1121 

Law,  Ex  p.,  35  Ga.  285,  15  Fed. 

Cas.  No.  8,126    16,       83 

V.  Ewell,  2  Cranch  (C.  C.) 
144,  15  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
8,127    ..    17,   700,   809, 

870,     872 
Lawall  V.  Groman,  180  Pa.  St. 
532,   37   Atl.   98,   57   Am.   St. 
Rep.  602.. 233,  312,  314,  549, 

557,  559,  586,     589 
Lawler  v.  Van  Aernan,  22  Alb. 

L.  J.   (N.  Y.)    156   126,     128 

Lawrence  v.  Jarvis,  32  111.   304 

415,     440 
V.    Lawrence,    4    Edw.    (N. 

Y.)    357     310 

V.    Leathers,    31    Ind.    App. 

414,  68  N.  E.  179    639 

V.  Rutherford,     1     Pearson 

(Pa.)     555     443,     467 

V.  State.  50  Wis.  507,  7  N. 

W.   343    1105 

V.  Townscnd,    88    N.    Y.    24 

1003.   1018,  1035 

V.  U.  S.,  71   Fed.  228    985 

V.  Warner,  1  Cow.   (N.  Y. ) 

198     10,     470 

Law  Soc.  of  United  Kingdom  v. 

Watorlow,  8  App.  Cas.  (Eng.) 

407.  52  L.  J.  Q.  B.  674,  49  L. 

T.   N.   S.    141,   31    W.    R.    754     109 

Lawson  v.  Bettison,  12  Ark.  401 

450.     531 
V.  Hicks,    38    Ala.    279,    81 

Am.  Dec.  49    118,     122 

Lawyer's  Tax*  Cases,  Re,  S  Ileisk. 

(Tenn.)    505     100 

Lav   V.    Cardwell.    (Tex.)    33    S. 

W.   595    777 

Layman  Re,  40  Minn.  371,  42  N. 

W.  280    210,     211 

Layton  v.  Wood,  3  Jur.   (Eng.) 

124    537 


are  to  pages.] 

Lazarus   v.   Friedrichs,   125   La. 

6J9,  51   So.  603    293 

V.  McDonald,  97  Fed.  121  .  .      910 
Lazelle,  Re,  16  Misc.  515,  40  N. 

Y.    S.    343    1031 

Leach,  Re,  134  Ind.  665,  34  N. 
E.   641,   21   L.R.A.   701 

33,  34,  45,  46,  48,  49,  51 
V.  Fowler,  22  Ark.  143  .  .  304 
y.  Strange,  10  N.  C.  001    .  . 

733,     792 

V.  Williams,  8  Ala.  759 528 

Leahart  v.  Deedmeyer,  158  Ala. 

295,  48  So.  371    980 

Leahey   v.    March,    155    Pa.   St. 

458,   26   Atl.   701    040 

Leahy  v.  Dunlap,  0  Colo.  552.  .      144 
v.  Stone,   115  111.  App.   138 

377,  512 
Leaird  v.  Dans,  17  Ala.  27  ....  632 
Leake  v.  Cleburne,   (Tex.)   36  S. 

W.   97    959 

Leaken  Re,  137  Fed.  680 1098 

Learned  v.  Haley,  34  Cal.  608.  .   285- 
Leask  v.  Hoagland,  04  Misc. 
150,  118  N.  Y.  S.  1035.. 970, 

971,  972,  973,  975,  990,  1006 
Leavenson  v.  Lafontane,  3  Kan. 

523  1055- 

Leavenworth    County  Coni'rs   v. 

Brewer,  9  Kan.  307    1118 

Leaver   v.   Kilmer,   71   N.  J.  L. 

291,  59  Atl.  643 110 

v.  Whalley,  2  Dowl.  (Eng.) 

80    861 

Leavitt  v.  Chase,  59  Super.  Ct. 
230,    13    N.   Y.   S.    883, 
affirmed  129  N.  Y.  660, 
29  N.  E.  831..  724,  888,     904 
v.  Wallace,  12  N.  H.  489.  .      417 
Le  Barreau  De  Montreal  v.  Ho- 
nan,  8  Quebec   (Q.  B.)   20,  af- 
firmed 30  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  1    .  .    1182 
Lecatt  v.  Sallee,  3  Port.   (Ala.) 
115,    29    Am.    Dec.    249.. 273, 

740,     747 
Le  Clear  v.  Perkins,   103  Mich. 
131,  61  N.  W.  357,  26  L.R.A. 

627     6'^4.     0.37 

Le  Conte  v.  Irwin,  19  S.  C.  554     29g> 
Lecour   v.   Importers'  etc.,   Nat. 
Bank,     38     App.     Div. 
384,  56  N.  Y.  S.  356 .  . 

344,     345 


clviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Lecour   v.   Iniportors'   etc.,  Nat.  Leigh,   Re,    1    Munf.    (Va.)    4G8 

Bank,     01     App.     Div.  16,       17 

163,    70    N.   Y.   S.   419  v.  Williams,    64    Ark.    165, 

172,     206  41  8.  W.  323    606 

Lederer    v.    Goldston,    63    Misc.  Leigh's    Case,     1     ^lunf.     (Va.) 

322,    117    N.    Y.    S.    151.. 237,  468,480,486    82 

254,262,263,264,  1051                Case,  3  Mod.    (Eng.)    333..    1329 

Lee  V.  Brown,  6  Johns.   (N.  Y.)  Leighton    v.    Serveson,    8    8.    D. 

132    468  350,  66  N.  W.  938    1030, 

V.  Buckheit,    46    Wis.    246,  1048,    1050,  1052 

49  N.  W.  977   450       Leisenring    v.    Black,    5    Watts 

V.  Dixon,  3  F.  &  F.   (Eng.)  (Pa.)    303,   30   Am.   Dec.   322 

744    555                                                     296,  298,     303 

V.  Everest,     2     H.     &     N.  Leitch   v.   Diamond   Nat.   Bank, 

(Eng.)    285,    26    L.   J.  234  Pa.  St.  557,  83  Atl.  416     176 

Exch.  Sn  I    543       Leitensdorfer   v.   King,    7    Colo. 

V.  Grimes.  4      jIo.  185 489  436,  4  Pac.  37    765,     962 

V.  Hill,    87    \  a.    497,    12    S.  Lcniav  v.  Williams.  32  Ark.  166     634 

E.    10.52,    24    Am.    St.  Lemelin  v.  Larue,  10  L.  C.  Rep. 

Rep.  606    591  190     126 

V.  Lee,  150  la.  611,  130  N.  Lenoir   v.   Marlin,   10  Tex.   Civ. 

W.     128     849  App.  376,  30  S.  W.  566    646 

V.  Lomax,   219    111.   218,   76  Lent  v.   Portland,   42   Ore.   488, 

N.   E.   377    936,     941  71    Pac.    645     96,    98,    99,     101 

V.  Pearce,  08  N.  C.  70 283       Lentz,   Re,  65  N.  J.  L.  134,  46 

V.Superior    Ct.,     112     Cal.  Atl.  761,  50  L.R.A.  415.  .1225,  1226 

354,  44   Pac.  666.  .237,  Leo  v.  Green,  52  N.  J.  Eq.  1,  28 

240,     254  Atl.    904     531,     561 

V.  U.  S.,  45  Ct.  CI.  57  1142       v.  Levser,  36  Misc.  549,  73 

V.  Vacuum  Oil  Co.,  126  N.  N.  Y.  8.  941  ....945,  946 

Y.  579,  27  N.  E.  1018  Leonard,  Re,  127  App.  Div.  493, 

755,  805,  1043,  1084          111  N.  Y.  8.  905,  af- 

V.  Van    Voorhis,    78    Hun  firmed   193   N.   Y.  655, 

575,   29   N.   Y.   S.   571,  87  N.  E.   1121    ..1249, 

145    N.   Y.    603,    40   N.  1251,    1290,   1299 

E.  104   1018,  1032                Re,  12  Ore.  93,  6  Pac.  420 

v.  Winston,  68  Ala.  402   .  .  1024                                                        52,   87,       88 

Lee's  Succession,  4  La.  Ann.  578  v.  Boyd,   71    S.   W.  508,   24 

788.  934                       Ky.  L.  Rep.  1320.. 667, 

Ix-e  Lumber  Co.  v.  Hotard,  122  675-.     760 

La.  850,  48  So.  286,  129  Am.  v.  Gillette,    79    Conn.    604, 

St.  Rep.  368   857  06  Atl.  502 1327 

Leech,  Re,  45   La.  Ann.   194,   12  v.  Leonard,  !)  Ont.   Pr.  450     909 

So.    126    784                v.   Rogan,  20  Wis.  540   ....      719 

Loesville    First    Nat.    Bank    v.  Lescale  v.  .loseph  Sclnvartz  Co., 

Martin,   127   La.   733,  744,  53  110     l.a.    302,    40    So. 

So.   973,    977    986  708    534 

Loot  v.  McMaster,  51   Barb.    (N.  v.  ■Joseph      Schwartz      Co., 

Y.)     236     364                         1  IS  La.  718,  43  So.  385     118 

Logg  v.  Logg,  34  Wasli.   l:i2,  75  Eescheii     v.     Hrazcne,     104    Mo. 

I'ac.   130    S49            Apj).  415,  144  8.  W.  893,  .108,     199 

Leggc    V.    'riukcr,    1     H.    &     N.  Lesher    v.    Radel,    170    Fed.    723 

(  Kii._'.)    .-)()()    582                                                      303,    391,      393 

l.i'hiiiJiM,    V.\    p.,   .")!»    Ala.   0.".1     ..  v.    Hoessner.  5  Tlioinp.  t\:   C. 

977,    102!),    1053  (X.    V.)    074 988 

V.  'I'aihiHscf     .Mfg.    Co.,    04  Leslie    v.    l-'ischer,    02     111.     118 

Ala.  507,   1023                                                    415,    422,     443 


TAIil/E    OF    CASES. 


clix 


[Tvefcrences 

Loslio  V.  York,  112  Kv.  712,  66 
S.    W.    751,    2;!    Kv.    L. 

Rep.    2076     ■.7:!0,     738 

Lesster,  Re,   149  App.  Div.  O.SS, 

1:54  N.  Y.   S.   401    262,     26:! 

Leatcr  V.  Mcintosh,  101  GJa.  675, 

29  S.  E.  7    .  .426,  427,     435 
V.  Thurmond,    51     Ga.    118 

118,     122 
V.  Watkins,  41  Miss.  647..      416 
Le   Sueur   P'irst   State   Bank   v. 
Sibley       County       Hank,       90 
Minn.  456,  105  N.  W.  485,  4S9   1037 
Leszynskv  v.  Merritt,  9  Fed.  688 

1035,  1087 
Letcher  v.  Letcher,  50  Mo.  137 .  .      479 
Levara  v.  McNeny,  5  Neb.    (un- 
ofhcial)    Rep.   318,   98    N.   W. 
679,  modified  73  Neb.  414,  102 

N.    W.     1042     294,     303 

Lever  v.  Lever,   1   Hill   Eq.    (S. 

C.)    62   605 

Levers    v.    Van    Buskirk,    4    Pa. 

St.    309     193,     331 

Levev,  Re,  133  Fed.  572,  13  Am. 

Ba'nkr.    Rep.    314     354 

Levi  v.  Abbott,  4  Exch.   (Eng. ) 

588     411 

Levine,   Re,   148   App.  Div.  296, 

132  N.  Y.  S.  124   1227,  1236 

Levinson  v.  Sands,  74  111.  App. 

273    922,   931,  936,     963 

Levis    V.     Burke,     51     Hun     71 

mem.,  3  N.  Y.  S.  386 993 

Lew,  Re,  2  Civ.  Proc.   (N.  Y.) 

108    .540,     545 

Re,  10  Daly  (N.  Y.)  391   ..      545 
Re,  138  App.  Div.  896,  122 

N.   Y.   S.   1134    ..1315,  1317 
V.  Beasley,     41      La.     Ann. 

832,  '6  So.  630 773 

V.  Brannan,  39  Cal.  485   .  .      636 
V.  Brown,  56  Miss.  83.  .384, 

401,  406,  410,  412,     4.52 
V.  Coy,  64  Misc.  39,  117  N. 

Y.    S.    949    218 

V.  Levy,    107    La.    576,    32 

So.   117    468 

v.  Pope,    M.    &   M.    {Enc) 

410,  22  E.  C.  L.  343.  .      331 
V.  Pvnc.  C.  &  M.  453,  41  E. 

C.    L.    249     323 

V.  Steinhach,  43  Md.  212 

1031,   1053 
Lew   V.   Nolan,    8    Pa.   Dist.   Ct. 

531    490 


arc  to  pages.] 

Lewes     v.      ^lorgan,      5      Price 

(Eng.)   42   273 

Lewin,  Re,  103  Fed.  850,  4  Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.   632.. 825,     826 

V.  Delli,  17   Mo.  64    461 

Lewis  V.  Baker,  24  Mo.  App.  682     384 
V.  Broun,  36  W.  Va.   1,   14 
S.    E.    444    ..282,    286, 
292,  293,  304,  307,  653, 

605,    729,     750 
V.  Duane,    141    N.    Y.    302, 
36  N.  E.  322,  adirming 
69  Hun  28,  23  N.  Y.  S. 

433    343,   384,   386,     410 

V.  Fisher,    80   Md.    139,   30 
Atl.    608,    45    Am.    St. 
Rep.  327,  26  L.R.A.  278        14 
V.  Gamage,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 

347     ..388,     396,     397,     500 
V.  Gerniania  Sav.  Bank,  96 

Pa.   St.   86    775 

v.  Helm,    40    Colo.    17,    90 

Pac.  97   272,     273 

v.  HisTjins,  .52  Md.  614 125 

V.  J.  ^A.,    4   Edw.    (N.   Y.) 

599     280,     281 

V.  Kennett,  3  Russ.    (Eng.) 

466    143 

V.  Kinealy,  2  Mo.  App.  33  607 
V.  Lewis,  15  Ohio  715.  .072.  755 
V.  Lewis,  45  Ch.  D.    (Eng.) 

281    405 

V.  Moon,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
116,    1    Ohio    Cir.    Ct. 

211   493 

V.  Omaha  St.  R.  Co.,  (Neb.) 
114  N.  W.  281,.  .  .797, 
798,  997,  1010,  1014, 

1042,  1066,  1075 
V.  Peck,  10  Ala.  142,. 521,  576 
V.  State,  91  Ga.  168,  16 

S.  E.  986 157 

V.  Sumner,  13  Mete.  (Mass.) 

269    416,     477 

V.  Woodrufl",    15    How.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)   539.  .391,  396,     499 

V.  Yale,    4    Fla.    418 766 

Lewis  County  v.  U.  S.,  77  Fed. 

732     1135 

Lexington  Ave.,  Re,  30  App. 
Div.  602,  27  Civ.  Proc.  245,  52 
N.  Y.  S.  203  affirmed  157  N. 
Y.  678,  51   N.  E.   1092    .  .609, 

971.    1008,   10S1 
Lexington,     etc..     Min.     Co.     v. 

Welburn,  11   Ky.  L.  Rep.  307     383 


clx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ar 

Levner  v.   Levner,   ]23   la.   185, 

98  N.  \V.  G28    178,     2-22 

Lichty  V.  Hugus,  55  Pa.  St.  434 

782,   950,  9G0,   1045 
Liddicoat  v.   Treglown,   6   Colo. 

47    1198 

Lieberman  v.  Mandel,  98  N.  Y. 

S.   201    084 

Lifschitz    V.    O'Brien,    143    App. 

Div.  180,  127  N.  Y.  S.  1091.  .      189 
Liggett  V.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4 
U.   S.   App.   438,   2   C.   C.   A. 
286,    reversing    47    Fed.    472 
154,   155,    157,    159.   161,    166, 

167,  194,  198,  204,  217,     221 
Liles  V.  Liles.  116  Mo.  App.  413, 
91   S.  W.  983,   129  Mo. 
App.    117,    107    S.    W. 

1111   849 

V.  Terry     [1895]     2     Q.    B. 

(Eng.)    679    289 

Liles'   Succession,   24   La.    Ann. 

490 245 

Lillis  V.  Pennsylvania  Casualty 
Co.,  131   Mich.  .301,  91  N.  W. 
165,  9   Detroit  Leg.  N.  315... 709, 
889,     895 

Lilly  V.  Boyd,  72  Ga.  83   589 

\\  Prvse,  54  S.  W.  961,  21 
Ky.  L.  Pvep.  1223.. 701, 

952,     953 
V.  Robinson  ^Mercantile  Co., 

(Ark.)    153   S.  W.  820     933 

V.  Shaw,  .59  111.  72 847     848 

V.  State,  7  Okla.  Crim.  284, 

123    Pac.   575    111,  1104 

Linck  V.  Linck,  214  Mo.  464, 

113  S.  W.  1096  480 

V.  Litchfield,    141    111.    469, 

31   N.  E.   123    ....132,     133 
Lincoln  County  v.  Robertson,  35 

Okla.  616,  130  Pac.  947 1117 

Lind    V.   Jones,    104   Minn.    302, 

116  N.  W.  579 701,     921 

Lindahl  v.  Supremo  Court,  etc., 

100  :\Iinn.  87,  110  N.  W.  358, 

117  Am.  St.  Rep.  666,  8  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)    916    203 

Lindeherg  v.  Howard,   14(5    l'"<'d. 

467,   8    -Ann.    Cas.    709,    77    C. 

C.   A.  23    858 

Lindhoim  v.   .Manhattan   R.   Co., 

68  Tliin   (N.  Y.)   122,  22  N.  Y. 

S.    685     433,     438 

T>in(lholm  v.  Itasca  LimilHr  Co., 

«4  .Minn.  46,  65  N.  \V.  !i:;i    .  .    1055 


e  to  pages.] 

Lindley  v.  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
47    Kan.    432,    28    Pac. 

201    346 

V.  Ross,  137  Pa.  St.  629,  20 

Atl.   944    775 

Lindner  v.  Hine,  84  Mich.  511, 
48  N.  W.  43    .  .375,  378,  902, 

1016,   1023,   1048,   1080 
Lindquist  v.   Young,   119   Minn. 

219,  138  N.  W.  28   853 

Lindsay    v.    Carpenter,    90    la. 

529,  58  .N.  W.  900 

767,    945,    946,     961 
V.  Colbert  County,  112  Ala. 

409,  20  So.  637    768 

V.  Hatch,  85  la.  332,  52  N. 

W.   226    629 

V.  Pettigrew,    8    S.    D.    244, 

m  N.  W.  321    1055 

Lindsey  v.  Jones.  23  Ala.  835.  .      291 
Lindsley    v.    Caldwell,    234    Mo. 
498,  137  S.  W.  983,  37  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    161    287,  1038 

Lindt  V.  Linder,  117  la.  110,  90 

N.  W.  596 741 

Line    v.    Spies,    139    Mich.    484, 

102  N.  W.  993   134 

Lingelbach    v.    Hobson,    130    la. 

488,  107  N.  W.  168    852 

Linsley  v.  Sinclair,  24  Mich.  380  305 
Linton  v.  Com.,  46  Pa.  St.  294  328 
Lipscomb    v.    Adams,    193    Mo. 

530,  91  S.  VV.  1046,  112 
Am.  St.  Rep.  500.. 728, 

731,  739,     75G 
V.  Castleman,  147  Ky.  741, 

145    S.   W.   753    956 

Lisbon  v.  Holton,  51  N.  H.  209 

374,     376 
List  V.   List,   82   S.  W.  446,  26 

Kv.    L.    Rep.    691     187,     209 

Litclilicld    First    Xat.    Bank    v. 
Fid.'lilv,     etc.,    Co.,     106     111. 

App.  3(>7    851 

Lift  V.  Stewart,  62  N.  Y.  S.  1114  482 
Litteii   V.   Saulsberry,  40  Wash. 

.550,   82    Pac.   909* 854 

Little  V.   Edwards,  69   Ud.  499. 

16  Atl.  134   499 

V.  Kcon,  1  N.  Y.  Code  Rep. 

4    328 

V.  McKeon.     1     Sandf.     (N. 

V.)     607     328 

V.  Rodcrors,  2  ]\Ietc.  (^lass.) 

478  1054,  1055 

V.  Sexton,  89  Ga.  411,  15 

S.  E.  490 997,  107.5 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxi 


Little  v.Spreadbury,  [1010]  2  K. 
B.  (Eiig.)  (ioS,  102  L. 
T.  N.  S.  829,  7!)  L.  J. 
K.  B.  111!),  54  Sol.  J. 
618,  26  Times  L.   Rep. 

552    406 

V.  Thompson,    24    Ind.    146     148 
Little  River  Lumiior  Co.,  Ro,  101 
Fed.  558,  3  Am.  Bankr. 

Rep.  082    822 

Livermore  v.  Rand,  26  N.  H.  85     894 

V.  Webb,  50  Cal.  48!) 206 

Livesley  v.  Pier,  11  Wash.  208, 

39  Pac.  600    401,  404,     450 

Livingston     v.     Burroughs,     33 

Mich.    511     .  .048,    649,     651 
V.  Cornell,    2    Mart.    0.    S. 
(La.)    281    ..661,   688, 

689,  691,     869 

V.  Cox,  6  Pa.  St.  360    322 

V.  Mclntvre,     1     How.     Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    253    472 

V.  New  York  El.  R.  Co., 
58  Hun  (N.  Y.)  131, 
19  Civ.  Pro.  258,  UN. 

Y.  S.  359 472 

V.  Radclid,     6     Barb.      (N. 

Y.)   201    391 

V.  Wagner,  23   Nev.   53,  42 

Pac.    290     184 

Livingston  Middleditcli  Co.  v. 
New  York  College  of  Dentist- 
ry, 30  Misc.  83i,  61  N.  Y.  S. 
918  aflirmed  31  -Misc.  259,  7 
N.   Y.   Ann.   Cas.   398,   64   N. 

Y.  S.  140  462,  463,     544 

Lizars  v.  Dawson,  32  U.  C.  Q. 

B.  (Eng.)    237    958 

Lizotte,  Re,  32  R.  I.  386,  79  Atl. 

960,  35  L.R.A.(N.S.)    794    .. 

630  1207 
Lloyd  v.  Davis,  2  Ind.  App.  170, 

28  N.   E.   232    193,     331 

Lonncrs'   Bank   v.   Nostrand,   53 

Super.  Ct.   (N.  Y.)   525 1073 

Lochenmever    v.    Eogartv,     112 

111.   572    246.   391,   393,     394 

Loehrane  v.  Stewart  (Ky.)  2  S. 

W.   903    '. 236 

Lockhard  v.  McKinley,  9  W.  N. 

C.  11    '. 303 

Lockhart    v.    Washington    Gold 

etc.,  Min.  Co.  16  N.  M. 

223,  117  Pac.  833    213 

V.  Wolf,   82    111.   37    460 

V.  Wvatt.    10   Ala.   231,   44 

Am.  Dec.  481 307 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Loekman,    Re,    4    Abb.    N.   Cas. 

(N.  Y.)    173   827 

Lockner  v.  Holland,  81  N.  Y.  S. 

730   267,  375,     379 

Lockwood,  Re,  154  U.  S.  116,  14 
S.  Ct.  1082,  38  U.  S. 
( L.  ed. )  929  .  .  33,  50, 

59,   88 
v.  Blackhawk  Countv,  34 

Iowa  235 .' 480 

v.  Brush,  6  Dana  (Ky.) 

433  911,  961 

V.  Dillenbeck,   104   App. 
Div.  71,  93  N.  Y.  S. 

321  325 

v.  McLean.    18    Wend.     (N. 

Y.)    050    470 

V.  Mills.  39  111.  002    420 

v.  U.  S.,  9  Ct.  CI.  346  .  .46, 

47,  52,       55 
Loder   v.   Whelpley,    111    N.   Y. 
239,  18  N.  E.  874,  reversing  1 

Dem.   308    211 

Lodge   V.    Gaunt,   10   W.   N.   C. 

(Pa.)    438   203 

Loew,    Ex   p.,   5    Hun     (N.   Y.) 

402,  50  How.  Pr.  373    1241 

Logan,   Re,   143   App.  Div.  225, 

128  N.  Y.  S.  134    1211 

v.  Maytag,   57   la.    107,   10 

N.  W.  311    640 

Lombard  v.  Bayard,  1  Wall.  Jr. 
(C.  C.)  196,  15  Fed. 
Cas.    No.    8,469    .  .789, 

791,  926,  928,     929 
v.  Hendrix,  56  S.  C.  476,  32 

S.  E.  511  341 

V.  Whiting,  1  Walk.  (Miss.) 

229    519,  609,  611,     612 

London    Chatham    &    Dover    R. 
Co.  V.  South   Eastern   R.  Co., 
60  L.  T.  N.  S.    (Eng.)    753..      094 
London  County  Council  v.  Attv. 

Gen.  [1902]"  A.  C.   (Eng.)  165  1133 
London    Scottish    Ben.    Soc.    v. 
Chorlev,  13  Q.  B.  D.  872,  53 
L.  J.  Q.  B.  551,  51  L.  T.  N. 

S.  100,  32  W.  R.  781    861 

Long  V.  Hall,  3  Sandf.   (N.  Y.) 

729   540' 

V.  Orsie,    18    S.    B.    (Eng.) 
610,    20    L.    J.    C.    PI. 

127   945 

V.  Rodman,  58  Ind.  58 894 

V.  Sampson,  4  Ky.  L.   Rep. 

532  576 


ol 


■C'lXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Longenecker  v.  Kulin,  126  App. 

Div.  2.14,  110  N.  Y.  S.  517   .  .      312 
Longworth   v.   Ilandv,  2  Disnev 

(Ohio)     7.5    ". 609,     G14 

Longvcar  v.  Carter,  88  Hun  ol.3, 
2  N.  y.  Ann.  Cas.  192.  34  N. 

Y.  S.  785    993 

Tioofbourow   v.   Hicks,   24    Utah 
49,  66  Pac.  602,  55  L.R.A.  874 

1024.  1033,  1084 
Looff  V.   Lavvton,    14   Hun    ( N. 

Y.)   588 581 

Looff  V.  Lawton,  97  N.  Y.  478  .  . 

280,  515,     557 
Loomis   V.   Mullins,    101    S.   W. 

913,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  231   

882,     884 
V.  New   York,   etc.,   R.   Co., 
159  Mass.  39,  34  N.  E. 

82 340,     342 

V.  Norman  Printers'  Supply 
Co.,    81    Conn.    343,    71 

Atl.  358 331 

Looney  v.  Levy,  35  La.  Ann. 

1012 958 

Lord,  Re,  2  Scott,  131,  30  E.  C. 
L.  430,  1  Hodges,  195   .  .   613, 

615,     616 
V.  Burbank,  IS  Me.   176    .  . 

391,  392,     571 
V.  Hamilton,  34  Ore.  443,  56 

Pac.  525    517 

V.  Veazie,  8  How.  255.  12  U. 

S.  (L.  cd.)  1069 1238 

V,  Wood.    120    la.    303,    94 

N.  VV.   842    347 

V.  Wormleighton,  Jac. 

(Eng.)  580 974 

Loree,   Re,    158   Mich.    372,    122 
N.    W.    623,    16    Detroit    Leg. 

N.  630  210 

Lorenz  v.  King,  38  Pa.  St.  93.  .      376 
Lorillard    v.    Rarnard,    42    Hun 
545,    4    N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    61 S 

991.     994 
V.  Robinson,    2    Paige     ( N. 

Y.)    276    701,     S72 

I.orimer   v.    Lorimer,   124   Midi. 

631,  H3  N.  W.  609,  7   Detroit 

Leg-   >■'•  367    ..    155.   193,   197.     479 

Los    Angeles    (Jold    Mine    Co.    v. 

Carnjilprll,   1  :i  CdIo.  Apji.   1,  nti 

I'ac.   216    S.-,» 

LfMigliridgc     V.     Riukliart,     147 

Ky.  457,  144  S.  W.  65   .  .  380,     383 


are  to  pages.] 

Louis,  Re.  [1891]  1  Q.  B.  (Eng.) 
649,  04  L.  T.  N.  S.  565.  60  L. 
J.  Q.  B.  500,  39  W.  R.  511.  .  .      109 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Boland, 

70  Ind.  595 511 

V.  Givcns.    13   Ky.   L.   Rep. 

491   1085 

V.  Xewsome,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

174 416,     430 

V.  Pavnter,     125    Ky.    520, 

101  S.  W.  935 562 

V.  Proctor,  51  S.  W.  591,  21 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  447  .  .  984, 

1046,  1047 
V.  Reynolds.   118   Ind.   170, 

20  N.  E.  711   726,     768 

v.  Wallace,  136  111.  87,  26 
N.  E.  493,  11  L.R.A. 
787    ..    780,    790,    935, 

936,     940 
V.  Wilson,  138  U.  S.  507,  11 
S.    Ct.    405.    34    U.    S. 

(L.  ed.)  1023 792,     811 

Louisville    Gas    Co.    v.    Hargis 

(Ky.)  33  S.  W.  946 785, 

787,  790,  963,     964 
Louisville  Trust  Co.  v.  Stone,  88 
Fed.   407,   affirmed   174   U.   S. 
429,  19  S.  Ct.  875,  43  U.  S.  (L. 

ed.)    10.J4    483 

Louque  v.  Dejan,  129  I.a.  519.  56 

So.  427,  38  L.R.A.  (N.S.)    389     237 

Love  v.  Baehr,  47  Cal.  364 

1145,  1149 
v.  Hall,    3    Yerg.     (Tenn.) 

408    241,     250 

v.  Peel.  79  Ark.  366,  95  S. 

W.  998 248,  254 

v.  ShcflVlin,  7  Fla.  40 

129.    130,     355 
Lovett  v.  Moore,  98  Ga.  158,  26 

S.  E.  498 1026.  1029,  1052 

Loveland.  Re.  162  Cal.  595,  123 

Pac.  801    172 

V.  .Tones.  4  Ind.  184 537 

V.   Loveland,    96     111.    App. 

4SS 848 

Low  V.  Settle,  22  W.  Va.  387   .  . 

4 IS,   428,     4,34 
Lowe  V.  Hamilton.  132  Ind.  406, 

31  N    E.  1117   626 

V.  Lowe,    111    Md.    113,    73 

Atl.  S7S 155 

V.    Phillips,  21   O'lio  St.  657     847 
Lowcville  ('(lal  Miii.  Co.  v.  Zap- 
pio,  SO  Ohio  St.  458,  89  N.  K. 
07    458,     492 


TAI!LE    OF    CASES. 


clxiii 


[References 

Lowciithal,  Re,  Gl  Cal.  122 

84,  !)4,  1250 
Re,  78  Cal.  427,  21  I'ae.  7  .  . 

12i)0.    12'Ji),  1300 

Re   (Cal.)   37  Pac.  .yZG 

1224,  1272 
Lower  v.  Wilson,  9  S.  D.  252.  68 
N.   W.  545,   62   Am.   St.  Rep. 

865  471 

Lowman  v.  Elmira,  C.  &  N.  R. 
Co.,  85  Hun  188,  32  X.  Y.  S. 
579,   affirmed    154   N.   Y.   765, 

49  N.  E.  1099 397,     398 

Lown  V.  Casselman  (N.  D.)   141 

N.  W.  73   997,  1030 

Lowrie  v.  Vcrner,  3  Watts  (Pa.) 

317 344 

Lowry  v.   Clark,  20  Pa.   Super. 

Ct.  357    410,  499 

V.  Guilford,  5  C.  &  P.  234, 

24  E.  C.  L.  295   565 

V.  McMillan,  8  Pa.  St.  157, 

49   Am.   Dec.   501    459 

Lowy,  Re.  140  App.  Div.  537,  125 

N.  Y.  S.  777    1307 

Lucas  V.  Campbell,  88  111.  447.  .    1019 
V.  Georgia    Bank,    2    Stew. 

(Ala.)  147,  149  ..  422,  438 
Lucas  Bank  v.  Kinsr,  73  Mo.  590  849 
Luce,   Re.  83   Cal.   303,  23   Pac. 

350     1213,    1217, 

1221,  1235,  1306.  1309 
V.  Foster,  42  Neb.  818.  60 

N.  W.  1027  128, 

129,  355,  506 
Lucev  V.  Greenough,  28  R.  I. 

230,  66  Atl.  300 1152 

Lucliini  v.  Police  Jury,  126  La. 
972,  21  Ann.  Cas.  59,  53  So. 

68 355,     944 

Luco  V.  DeToro,  91  Cal.  405,  18 

Pac.  866,  27  Pac.  1082 

772,     956 
Ludden,    etc.,    vSoutbern     Music 
House  V.  Sumter,  45  S.  C.  186, 
22  S.  E.  738,  55  Am.  St.  Rep. 

761  410 

Ludeke,  Re,  22  Misc.  676,  50  N. 

Y.  S.  962 785 

Ludeman  v.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co., 
72  App.  Div.  26,  76  N.  Y.  S. 

128  483 

Ludlow  Charities,  Re,  2  Mvl.  & 

C.    (Eng.)    316 ' 1196 

Ludwig  v.  Cramer,  53  Wis.  193, 
10  X.  W.  81   139,     140 


lire  to  pages.] 

Luikert    v.    Luikert,    102    App. 

Div.  53,  92  X.  Y.  S.  97    619 

Lukin  v.  Halderson,  24  Ind.  Ajjp. 

645,  57  N.  E.  254 181 

Lumpkin  v.   Louisville  &   X.  R. 
Co..    136    Ga.    135,    70    S.    E. 

1001    996,  1001,  1015 

Lundberg  v.  Davidson,  68  Minn. 
328,  71  N.  W.  395,  72  X.  W. 

71    1054,  1055 

Lundry's    Succession,     117    La. 

193,  41  So.  490   384 

Lundy,  Ex  p.,  8  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 

Ill,  14  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  561 1241 

Lungerhausen  v.  Crittenden,  103 

Mich.  173,  61  X.  W.  270 

786,   873,     922 
Lupton  v.  Taylor,  39  Ind.  App. 
412,   78   X."e.   689,   rehearing 
denied    39    Ind.   App.   420.    79 

X.  E.  523    325,  520,     943 

Lusk,  Ex  p.,  82  Ala.  519,  2  So. 

140   1091 

v.  Salter,  1  Busli  (Ky.)  311  267 
Luttrell  v.  State,  157  S.  W.  157  132 
Luzenburg  v.  O'Malley,  116  La. 

699,  41  So.  41    138 

Luzerne  Bldg.  &   Sav.  Assoc,  v. 
People  Sav.  Bank,  142  Pa.  St. 

121,  21  Atl.  806 480 

Lynch,  Ex  p.,  25  S.  C.  193 888 

V.  Com..  16  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  368,  16  Am.  Dec. 

582 253,  414,  422, 

506,  508,  549,  552,     695 
V.  Lynch,  99  111.  App.  454.  . 

237,     239 
V.  Munson,  (Tex.)  59  S.  W. 

603,  61  S.  W.  140 

729,  794,  812,     882 
V.  Pollard,     26     Tex.     Civ. 

App.  103,  62  S.  W.  945     751 
V.  Willard,     6    Johns.     Ch. 

(X.  Y.)   342   872 

V.  Wilson,   22   U.   C.   Q.   B. 

226 560 

Lynde  v.  Judd,  3  Day,  499 198 

V.  Lvnde,  64  X. ' J.  Eq.  736, 
52  Atl.  694,  97  Am.  St. 
Rep.  692,  58  L.R.A. 
471,   reversing   50   Atl. 

659   609,  616,     759 

V.  McGregor,        13        Allen 

(Mass.)   172 175 


clxiv 


TAlil.E    OF    OASES. 


[Rt'fcreiicos  ar 

Lynn  v.  Lyerle,  113  111.   128   .  .      183 
V.  Moise,  76  la.  G05,  39  N. 

W.  203   301,     302 

V.  Moss,    (Kv.)    62    S.    W. 

712,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  214     661 
Lyon  V.  Boilvin,  2  Gilman  (111.) 

629   439 

V.  Hires,    91    Md.    411,    46 

Atl.  985 479 

V.  Lyon,  197  Pa.  St.  212,  47 

Atl.   193    165 

V.  Tevis,  8  Iowa,  79   530 

V.  Williams,  42  Ga.  168    .  .      492 
Lyons,    Ee,    162   Mo.   App.   688, 
145  S.  W.  844   ...    112, 
1116,  1121,  1171,  1174, 

1186,  1258 
Lytle  V.  Bach,  93  S.  W.  608,  29 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  424  .  .  993,  1027 
V.  Crawford,    69    App.    Div. 
273,  32  Civ.  Proc.  360, 

74  N.  Y.  S.  660 478 

V.  State,  17  Ark.  60S    

657,  658,  663,  664,  703,     728 
Lyttle  V.  Goldberg,  131  Wis.  613, 

111  N.  W.  718  668 

Lytton  V.  Baird,  95  Ind.  349   .  . 

634,     636 

M 

Maas  V.  Block,  7  Ind.  202  .  .168,     178 
Mabb  V.  Stewart,  147   Cal.  413, 

81  Pac.   1073    451 

Mabry  v.  Cheadle,    (la.)    80  N. 

W.'312   889,     890 

McAdoo  V.  Lummis,  43  Tex.  227     571 
McAfee  v.  Rurrack,    1    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  347   987 

McAlexander  v.  Wright,  3  T.  B. 
Men.   (Ky.)   194.  16  Am.  Dec. 

93    230,  422,  423.  424, 

428,  429     435 
McAllister  v.   Com.,  30   Pa.  St. 

536 573 

V.  Dexter,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  106 
Me.  371,  21  Ann.  Cas. 
486,    70    Atl.     891,    29 

L.i;..A.(\.S.)    734    367 

Mc.Xnallv     v.     Hawkins     Luinlx'r 

Co..    11)11   Ala.   3'.)7,   I'.l   So.    117      S51 
Mac.Xiiliui.     Siicccs^imi     df,    11 

I. a.   -Anil.   i:!2    2-lil 

V.   I'.akcr,  7  Kv.  I>.  Ilej).  4  10, 

■111    ■ 5!)_',     594 

V.    Fry,   10  Kan.  233 

308,  31H,  7. .5,     949 


e  to  pages.] 

^NliU'Artliur      v.      Hastings,      15 

Manitoba,  500   270 

Macaulay  v.  Policy,  [1897]  2  Q. 
B.  122,  76  L.  T.  N.  S.  643,  45 

W.    R.   681    403 

McBrady,  Re,  19  Ont.  Pr.  37..      613 
McBratney  v.  Ciiandler,  22  Kan. 
692,  31  Am.  Rep.  213.  . 

(\U.     752 
V.  Rome.   W.   &   0.   R.    Co.. 

87  N.  Y.  467 457,  1045 

McBride,  Re,  6  App.  Div.  376.  39 

N.  Y.  S.  579    624 

Re,  2  Ch.  Chamb.   (Ont.)    .. 

153 708 

McBroom     v.     Sommerville,     2 

Stew.  (Ala.)  515   561 

McBurnett  v.  Lanipkin,  45  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  567,  101  S.  W.  864 

418,     429 
McCaa  v.  Grant,  43  Ala.  262   .  . 

992,  1084 
McCabe  v.  Britton,  79  Ind.  224 

750,  758,     989 
V.  Fogg,   60   How.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)  488 1075,  1078 

V.  Goodfellow,  21   Civ.  Pro. 

66,  15  N.  Y.  S.  377  837,     875 
V.  Healv,    138    Cal.    81,    70 

Pac.  1008    312 

V.  Patton,  174  Fed.  217,  98 
C.    C.    A.   225,    23   Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.    335    823 

McCain  v.   Portis,  42  Ark.   402 

999,  1026 
McCaleb   v.   Drevfus.    156     Cal. 

204.  103  Pac.  924   856 

McCall    V.    (Gardner.    125    N.    C. 

238.  34  S.  E.  434    1092 

V.  Walter,  71  Ga.  287 773 

McCammon  v.  Peck,  6  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  504.  9  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  589 

802,     965 
McCamy  v.  Key,  3  Lea   (Tcnn.) 

247 .' 1082 

]\IcCann  v.  McLennan,  3  Neb.  25     488 
IMcCargo  v.  State,  (Miss.)   1  So. 

Kil    13,  97,     108 

.McCarh^y  v.  White,  144  Ala.  662, 

"  39  So.  978    .  .    601.  615,     616 
V.    White,    154    Ala.   2!)5,   45 

So.    155    623 

McCartliN'.    lie.    12    Mich.    71.    51 

'.\.    W.    9113    ]2()S.  1285 

Re,  55  Hun   (  N.  Y.)   7.  8  N. 

Y.  S.  578 206 


TAliLE    OF    CASES. 


clxv 


[References 

McCarthy    v.    Crump,    17    Colo. 
App.   110,   07    Pac.   35:5 

371,   374,   709,     711 
V.  Kitchen,  59   Ind.   500    .  . 

638,     039 
McCarty's     Succession,     3     La. 

Ann.  517,  518   701,  788, 

924.  925,     934 
McCarver  v.  Nealy,  1  G.  Greene 

(la.)    360    364,  391, 

.393,   500,     501 
McCaskell  v.  State,  53  Ala.  510 

97,    98,    99,     103 
McCaslin  v.  Camp,  26  Mich.  390     131 

McCaughev,  Re,  3  Ont.  425 1221 

McCauiey\'.  Butler,   1  Ont.  W. 

"Rep.  343    268 

V.  State,  21  Md.  556 419 

McCelvey  v.  Thompson,  7  S.  C. 

185 298 

McCIafferty   v.    Philip,    151    Pa. 

St.  86,  24  Atl.  1042    637 

McClain    v.    C.    F.    Achims    Co., 

143  111.  App.  77   632 

V.  McClain,  52  la.  272,  3  N. 

W.  60 848 

V.  Williams, 8  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

230    794      913 

McClare  v.  Lockard,"  121   N.  y! 
308,  24  N.   E.  453,   reversing 

2  N.  Y.  S.  646    1003 

McClelan,  Ex.  p.  1  Wheel.  Crim. 

Cas.   (N.  Y.)    303   352 

McClellan,    Re,    27    S.    D.    109, 
Ann.  Cas.  191.1C,  1029,  129  N. 

W.   10;]7    151 

McClelland  v.  McCleland.  37  S. 

W.  350 907 

McClennan  v.  Grant,  83  App. 

Div.  599,  82  N.  Y.  S.  208 274 

McClintock  v.   Helberg,   168   111. 

384,  48  N.  E.  145   383,     391 

McClure    v.    Colelough,    5    Ala. 

65    506 

V.  Goodenough,  19  Civ.  Pro. 

191,   12   N.  Y.   S.   459        155 
McClurg  V.  Hill,  7  Mo.  App.  579     006 
V.  Willard,  5   Watts    (Pa.) 

275      487 

McConnell    v.    Brown,    40    Ind. 

384     455,    459,     482 

V.  McConnell,  98   Ark.   193, 
130     S.     W.     931,     33 
L.R.A.(N.S.)     1074     ..      758 
McCoon  V.  Galbraith,  29  Pa.  St. 

493    236,    248,     006 


are  to  pages.] 

McCormack  v.  Falls  City  Bank, 
57  Fed.  107,  9  U.  S.  App.  203, 

6  C.  C.  A.  683    777 

McCormick    v.    Elsea,    107    Va. 

472,  59  8.  K.  411    844 

V.  Josepli.    83    Ala.    401,    3 

So.   796    268 

V.  Molin,   5    Bhickf.    (Ind.) 

509    272,   273,   279,     283 

V.  Sliaughnessy,  19  Idaho 
465,  114  "Pac.  22,  34 
L.R.A.(N.S.)  1188 

245,     246 
V.  Walter    A.    Wood    Mow- 
ing, etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  72 

Ind.  518    391,     397 

V.  Wliceler,   36   111.    114,   85 

Am.   Dec.   388    270 

V.  Swem,  36  Utah  6,  20 
Ann.     Cas.     1368,     102 

Pac.  626, 778 

McCov  V.  Gas  Engine,  etc.,  Co., 
135  App.  Div.  771,  119 
N.  Y.  S.  804  ....  724, 

741,  745 
V.  Gas  Engine,  etc.,  Co.,  J  52 
App.  Div.  642,  137  N. 

Y.  S.  591  670,  726 

V.  Gas  Engine,  etc.,  Co.,  71 
Misc.  537,  129  N.  Y.  S. 

251    081     739 

V.  McCoy,   36   W.   Va.   772, 

15  S.  E.  973    1024 

V.  McCoy,-    125    S.    W.    177 

175,     197 
McCracken,  Re,  129  Fed.  621,  12 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    95        821 
V.  Earned,    59     N.    J.    Eq. 

190,   44   Atl.   959    ..  596 

McCrary  v.  Ruddick,  33  la.  521 

709,  712,  897,  900,     902 
McCrea  v.  Scofield,  86  N.  Y.  S. 

10    959 

V.  Stierman,  70  N.  J.  L. 
394,       09       Atl.       1008 

870,     871 
McCreary    v.    Hoopes,    25    Miss. 

428    18,   231,    009,    014.  1092 

McCue  V.  Com.  103  Va.  870,  49 

S.   E.   625    1101,  1107 

M'Cullocli       V.      Maryland,       4 
Wheat.  428,  4  U.  S.    (L.  ed) 

579    101 

McCulloc'.i    V.    ]\Iurphv,    45    111. 
250     ' 907 


clx\'i 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Hefcrenccs 

McCulloiigh,   Re,   5   Ta.   Co.  Ct. 

87    4.i4 

V.  Flournoy,  CO  Ala.   ]8!)..    1024 
V.  Guetner,    1    Biiin.    (Pa.) 

214    4]7 

V.  Rice,   59   Ind.   5S0    047 

V.  Robinson.  2   Ind.  030    .  .      906 
McCune  v.  Scott,  18  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.   203    185 

McCurdy    v.    Dillon,    135    Mich. 

*078,   98  N.   W.   746,   10 

Detroit     Leg.     N.     927 

719,  752,  759.     760 
V.  Xew    York    L.    Ins.    Co., 
115  Midi.  20,  72  N.  W. 
996,   4   Detroit  Leg.  N. 

738    232,  233,  1110 

V.  Terry,  33  Ga.  49    411 

McCurlev  v.  Stockridge,  62  Md. 

422,  50  Am.  Rep.  220    907 

MeCutcheon  v.  Dittman,  164  N. 
Y.  355,  58  N.  E.  97, 
modifying  23  App.  Div. 
285,    48    N.    Y.    S.    360 

267.     270 
V.  Loud,    71    Alicli.   433,    39 

N.    VY.   569    454.     889 

McDaniels   v.   Cutler,   3    Brews. 

(Pa.)    57    590,     595 

MeDavitt  v,  Bover,  169  111.  475, 

48   N.  E.  317    118,     121 

McDeed  v.  McDeed,  67   111.  545 

336,     337 
McDcrmit,  Re,  63  N.  J.  L.  476, 

43   Atl.  685    1209,  1218 

McDermott  v.  Evening  Journal 
Assoc,  43  N.  J.  L.  488, 

39   Am.   Rep.   600    139 

V.  Union  Credit  Co.,  76 
Minn.  84,  78  N.  W.  967, 

79  N.  W.  673    141 

McDonald  v.  American  Mort- 
gage Co.,   17   Ore.  626, 

21    Pac.    883     943 

V.  Carpenter,   11    OkUi.   115 

65    Pac.    942     934 

V.  Cliarleston,  C.  &  C.  R. 
Co.,  93  Tenn.  281,  24  S. 
W.     252      ..972,     994, 

lo;!.-).  u)r,7 

V.   Cliicago,   etc.,    \\.   Co.,   20 

Iowa  170,  174 cot.     723 

V.  Dc  Vito.  118  Ap]).  Div. 
500,    103    N.   Y.    S.    50S 

704,  765,  798,  876,     887 


are  to  pages.] 

McDonald  v.  Field,   12  Ont.  Pr. 
213,    reversing    9    Ont. 

Pr.    220     402 

V.  Kane,  64  Misc.  072,  120 

N.  Y.  S.  283  1175 

V.  Logan,  (Va.)  34  S.  E. 

490  729,  765 

V.  McDonald,  142  Ind.  55, 

41  N.  E.  336  189 

V.  Macdonald.  L.  R.  14  Eq. 
(Eng.)  60,  41  L.  J.  Ch. 
566,  26  L.  T.  N.  S.  685, 

20  W.  R.  739 339 

V.  Kapier,  14  Ga.  89  ..528, 
696,  697,  701,  907,  985. 
990,    1021,    1033,    1044, 

1047,  1075 
V.  Page,  Wright  (Ohio)  121     863 

V.  Smith,   57    Vt.   502    1054 

V.  State,  143  Ala.  101,  39 
So.     257      ..601,     608, 

611.   615.   618.     620 
V.  Tiie  Cabot  Newb.  348,  10 
Fed.     Cas.     No.     8,759 

1019,  1080 
V.  Tittmann,    96    Mo.    App. 

536,  70  S.  W.  502 828 

V,  Todd,      1      Grant      Cas. 

(Pa.)    17    252,  503,     532 

V.  U.  S.,  66  Fed.  255,  re- 
versed 72  Fed.  898,  44 
U.   S.   App.  461,  21    C. 

C.  A.  347  1130 

V.  Wagner,   5  Mo.   App.  50 

308,  318,  750.     949 
V.  Willis,  143  Mass.  452,  9 

N.   E.    835    133 

McDonogh  v.  Sherman,  138  App. 

Div.   291,    122   N.   Y.   S.   1033  1004 
McDonough  v.  Daly,  3  Mo.  App. 

606   ..266,  371,  374,  455,  468,     531 
McDougald  v.  Lane,  18  Ga.  444 

171,  193,  330 
McDougall  v.  Campbell,  41  U.  C. 
Q.    B.    332     ..18,    698. 

(i99,     S61> 
V.  Ilazelton     Tripod     Boiler 
Co.,  88  Fed.  217,  00  II. 
S.  App.  2119,  31  C.  C.  A. 

487     982,     98f> 

V.  Upper  Canada  Law 
Soc.  18  Can.  Sup.  Ct. 
203,  212,  11  Can.  L.  T. 
30  reversing  15  Ont. 
App.  150.  allirnied  13 
Ont.      204      100,     107 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[Refereiicos 

McDowell    V.    Applobv,    1    TTow. 

Pr    (N.    Y.)"  220    104(),   1074 
V.  Baker,  20  Ind.  481    .  .  TO-")     001 
V.  Gregory,    14   Neb.   .■!:!.    14 
N.   \V.   800    ..371.   454. 

.")22,     700 
V.  Milrov,  GO  111.  408.  .203, 

:i01,     302 
V.  Perrine,     3(3    N.    J.     Eq. 

G32      487 

V,  Potter,    8    Pa.    St.    189, 

49  Am.  Dec.  503  ..588, 

594,    605,     606 
V.  Second    Ave.    R.    Co.,    4 
Bosw.      (X.      Y.)      070 

240,     805 
McElhinney     v.     Kline,     6     Mo. 

App.   04 793,     794 

McElrath  v.  Dupu\%  2  La.  Ann. 

521    ". 723,     749 

McElreath  v.  Middleton,  80  (Ja. 

83,  ]4  S.  E.  006  480 

McEwen  v.  Mazyck,  3  Rich.  L. 

(S.  C.)    210    372 

McFadden  v.  Ferris,  G  Ind.  App. 
454,  32  N.  E.  107    ..885.  024, 

020,   028,     053 
Macfarlan  v.  Rolt,  L.  R.  14  Eq. 

580,  41   L.  J.  Cli.  040    185 

McFarland,    Re,    4    Pa.   St.    140     674 
V.  Altscliuler,   77   Xeb.   138, 

108  X.  W.   151    325 

V.  Butler,   11   Minn.   72.   77     205 
V.  Crary,    8    Cow.    (X.    Y.) 

253    322,  520,   507. 

508,   004,     862 
McGarrah  v.  State,   (Okla.)   133 

Pac.  200    1008 

McGarry    v.     Board    of    Super- 
visors, 1  Sweenv   (X.  Y.)   217     417 
McGee,  Re,  205  Pa.  St.  500,  55 

Atl.   776    724,   705,     828 

V.  Barber,  14  Pick.   (Mass.) 

212    54 

McGehee  v.  Hansell,  L3  Ala.  17     328 
V.  Importers'       etc..       X"at. 
Bank,    93    Ala.    102,    9 

So.  734    777 

V.  Insurance    Co.    of    Xortli 
America,   112  Fed.  853, 

50  C.    C.    A.    551     534 

McGeorge  v.  Bige^tone  Ga]i  Imp. 

Co.,    88    Fed. '^500    452 

McGill  V.  Fuller,  45  Wasb.  015, 

88  Pac.   1038    850 


are  to  pages.] 

.MHJili  V.  McGill,  2  :\retc.  (Ky.) 
258     . .248,    501,    520, 

SOI,  833,     834 
]\l((!innis   V.   Curry,   13    W.  Va. 

20    .' 400 

MiCinse    v.    State,    144    S.    W. 

20S      131 

M((j!luin    V.   Vanderlip,   27    Tex. 

300    804 

:\fcGoon  V.  Ankeny,   11    111.  558     602 
McCiown    V.    Leavenworth,    2    E. 

D.  Smith    (X.  Y.)    24    474 

McGraw  v.  Canton,  74  Md.  554, 

22  Atl.  1.32   782,  845,     89(» 

McGregor  v.  Comstock,  28  X.  Y. 

237      1002 

McGuinncss    v.     Manhattan     R. 
Co.,  60  App.  Div.  COG,   74  X. 

Y.   S.   1054    523 

McGuire.  Re,  106  App.  Div.  131, 

04  X.  Y.  S.  97  971.  072,  1035 

McHatton   v.   Girard,   41    Mont. 

387,   100   Pac.  704    880,     021 

Machette    v.    Wanless,    2    Colo. 

169     172,     179 

Mcllhennv   v.    Binz,    80   Tex.   1, 
13  S.   VV.   655,  20   Am. 

St.  Rep.  705   431 

V.  Plantexs,'  etc.,  Nat.  Bank, 

(Tex.)    46    S.    W.    282     777 
Mcllvaine  v.   Steinson,  90  App. 
Div.  77,  85  N.  Y.  S.  880  .  .720 

738,   8G0,   801,     888 
Mcllvoy  V.  Russell,   (Kv.)    12  S. 

W.  ]007    ' 704,     705 

V.  Russell    (Ky.)    24  S.   W. 

3    760 

V.  Russell,    9    Ky.    L.    Rep. 

350    ' 738 

Mclniffe    v.    Wheelock,    1    Gray 

(Mass.)  000  '.   302 

Mclntire  v.  Cagley,  37  la.  676  778 

v.  Yates,  104  "ill.  401  773 

Mcintosh,  Re,  112  X.  Y.  S.  513 

600,  615 
V.  Bach,  110  Ky.  701,  62  S. 
W.  515  ..733.  1010, 
1013,  1015,  1024,  1025, 

1026,  1036 
V.  Moore,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
22,   .53   S.   W.   611 
159,  160,  166.  167,  108, 

104.  197 
^rdntyre  v.  ^Nledrim.  63  Ga.  5S 

383,  391 


clxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Mclsaac    v.    Adams,    ]90    jNlass. 
117,  5    Ann.   Cas.   729,   70    N. 
E.  654,  112  Am.  St.  Rep.  321     718 
Mclver  v.  Clarke.  69  Miss.  408, 

10   So.  581    104 

Mack    V.    ]\Iiller.    87    App.    Div. 

359,    84    X.    Y.    S.    440     941 
V.  Sharp,  138  Mich.  448,  5 
Ann.   Cas.   109,   101    N. 
W.  631,  11  Detroit  Leg. 

N.  040   191 

MackaR  v.  WiRoughby,   167   U. 
S.  681,  17  S.  Ct.  954,  42  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)   323 980,  1025,  1027 

McKay   v.   Atkinson,   55    Wash. 
591,      104      Pae.      806 

780,  889,  901,     903 
V.  Ford,  5  H.  &  N.    (Eng.) 

792    123 

V.  Lancaster,      15     Ky.     L. 

Rep.  159   275.     767 

V.  Morris,  35  Misc.  571,  72 

N.  Y.  S.  23 1079,  1085 

V.  State,  90  Neb.  63,  Ann. 
Cas.  1913B  1034,  132 
N.  W.  741,  39  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  714,  91  Neb. 
281,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B 
1039,  135  N.  W.  1024, 
39  L.R.A.  (N.S.)  720 
1097,  1102,  1107,  nil,  1112 
McKechnie  v.  McKecImie.  3 
App.  Div.  91,  39  N.  Y.  S.  402 

385,     397 
McKee  v.  Sypert,  6  Kv.  L.  Rep. 

519    \ 719 

McKeen  v.  Gammon,  33  Me.  187     345 
McKeigue  v.  Janosville,  68  Wis. 

50,  31   N.  W.  298    242 

Mackel    v.    Rartlett,    33    Mont. 

123,  82  Pac.  795 157,  163,     175 

McKelvy's   Appeal,   108   Pa.   St. 
615    ..782,  841,  971,  973,  977, 

1022,  1023,  11)3.-),   1069 
McKonna,  Re,   137    Fed.  611,    15 
Am.      rjankr.      Rep.     4 

3  IS,     819 
V.  Carvcv,     191     Mass.     96, 

77  N.  E.  782    230 

V.  :\IcAnlle.    191    INlass.    96. 

77    \'.   E.  782    408 

V.   Mrlhilcv,  02  Ore.   1,    123 

I'ar.    1(1(1!)    1  124 

V.  \;iii  l;l;i'C(,tii.  1(1!)  Wis. 
271,  85  \.  W.  322,  8:! 
Am.    St.    Rep.    895     .  .      301 


are  to  pages.] 

McKenzie   v.   Burntisland,   Mor. 

Diet,  of  Decis.   11,  421     691 
V.  Canning,    131    Pac.    1172     633 
Mac  Kenzie  v.  Mac  Kenzie,  238 

111.   616,   87   N.   E.   848     133 
V.  Rhodes,      13      Abb.      Pr. 
(N.  Y^)    337,   21   How. 

Pr.  467    249 

V.  Wardvvell,     61     Me.     130 

996,   1048,  1050 
Mackey    v.    Adair,    99    Pa.    St. 

143     385,     387 

V.  Blake,    15   Ga.   402    540 

V.  Daniel,  59  Md.  484    512 

McKibbin  v.  Nafis,  76  Hun  344, 

27   N.   Y.   S.   723    620 

Mackie  v.  Howland,  3  App.  Cas. 

(D.    C.)    401 794,     796 

McKiernan  v.   Patrick,   4   How. 

(Miss.)    333    422,    424,     436 

McKinney  v.   Curtiss,   00  j\Iich. 
611,     27     N.     W.     691 

524,     530 
V.  Grand   St.,   etc.,   R.   Co.. 
104  N.  Y.  352,  10  N.  E. 

544   227 

V.  Salem,  77  Ind.  213    347 

Mackintosh   v.   Stewart,    (Ala.) 

01   So.  950    077 

McKoan     v.     Devries,     3     Barb. 

(N.  Y.)   196 23,  29,  34,     110 

McKowen    v.    Kernan,    35     La. 

Ann.    331    567 

McLain  v.  Nurnberg,   16   N.  D. 
144,     112    N.    W.    243 

353.     356 
V.  Watkins,      43      111.      24 

248,     250 
McLaino  v.  Bachelor,  8  Me.  324 

328,     408 
McLamore   v.   Heffncr,    31    Tex. 

189     466 

Mcivane  v.   7\brams,  2   Nev.   199     772 
M'Laren    v.    Charrior,    5    Paige 

(N.    Y.)     530    254,     258 

V.  Gillispie,    19    Utah    137. 

56  Pac.  080   ..328.  331,     332 
V.  Lochrane,  51  Ga.  237    .  .      784 
]\rcLaughlin    v.     Clark,     Freoui. 

Ch.    (Miss.)    385    502 

V.  Cowlcv.    127    Mass.    310. 
alliiiiicd     i:!l     Mass.    7(t 

US.     5.33 
V.   (Jilniorc.    1    111.   Aiip.   .')(;■; 

;;().    102,    ici,    17?.     174 

V.   Shields,    12    Pa.    St.    -.'S  ; 

;;2i),    332 


TABLE    OF    CA.SKS. 


clxix 


[References 

.^^cLcacl   V.   Applegatc,   127   Ind. 

Md,  26  N.  E.  830    28U,     515 

McLean,  Re,  5  Kulp    (Pa.)    170     786 
V.  Bundv,     104     Wis.     263, 

80  N.  W.  445 837 

V.  Clark,  47  Ga.  24    184 

V.  Lerch,  105  Tenii.  693,  58 

S.    W.   640    1028 

V.  Weeks,  61   Me.  277    131 

McLellan    v.    Havford,    72    Me. 
410,   39  "Am.    Rep.    343 

701,  703,  707,     708 
V.  Longfellow,    32   Me.   494, 
54  Am.  Dec.  599   .  .155, 

165,     166 
IMcLcran  v.  McNamara,  55  Cal. 

508 458 

McMalian    v.    Smith,    6    Heisk. 

(Tenn.)    170    ..274,  740,   746,     747 
McMahon    v.    Bardinger,     (Pa.) 

4  Atl.  379    370 

V.  Duffy,    36    Ore.    150,    59 

Pac.  184   879,     960 

V.  Snvder,     117     Wis.    463, 

9*4    N.    W.    351    259 

McMannomy  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  167  III.  497,  47  N.  E. 
712,    reversing    63    111.    App. 

259     780,     789 

McMannus    v.     State,    2     Head 

(Tenn.)    213     188 

McJNIanns  v.  Wells,  29  X.  Bruns. 

449,  1idds  K.  B.  Pr.  494 131 

McMaster  v.  Scriven,  85  Wis. 
162,  55  N.  W.  149,  39  Am.  St. 

Rep.  828    212 

McMath    V.    Com.,    12    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  251    603,     616 

V.  Manns  Bros.  Boot  &  Shoe 
Store,  15  S.  W.  879, 
12    Ky.    L.     Rep.     952 

839,  1223,  1337 
McMichael  v.  Davidson,  7   Rob. 

(La.)   53   302 

McMichen     v.     Brown,     10     Ga. 

App.  506,   73  S.   E.  691    358 

Mc:\licken  v.  Brent,  6  Mart.  N. 

S.    (La.)    249    570 

MciNIillan  v.  Northport  Smelt- 
ing, etc.,  Co.,  49  Wasli.  76,  94 

Pac.  761    782.  784,     964 

McMinn   v.   Riclitmver,   3   Ilill 

(N.   Y.)    236    ..  .' 893 

McMullen  v.  Ingham  Circuit 
Judge.  102  Mich.  608, 
61  N.  W.  260 1157 


are  to  pages.] 

McMullen    v.  Person,    102   Mich. 

608,  61   N.  W.  260    ...    1152 
V.  Reynolds,    209    111.    504, 
70  N.  E.  1041,  reversing 
105  111.  App.  386  .  .847, 

848,  849,     934 
V.  Doughty,    69    N.    J.    Eq. 
649,  61   Atl.  265,  68  N. 
J.  Eq.  776,  55  Atl.  115, 

284,  64  Atl.  1134    848 

V.  Montrose        County,    29 

Colo.  478,  68  Pac.  779  1097 
McMurray    v.    Marsh,    12    Colo. 

App.   95,   54   Pac.   852    ..391,     396 
McNagney     v.     Frazer,     1     Ind. 

App.  98,  27  N.  E.  431    1003 

McNairy  v.  Castleberry,  6  Tex. 

286    '. 469 

•McNamara  v.  Carr,  84  Me.  299, 

24  Atl.  8.56    441,     443 

V.  Douglas,    78    Conn.    219, 

61  Atl.  368 342 

McNamee     v.     O'Brien,     9     N. 

Bruns.  548    494 

V.  Steele.    8    Idaho   539,    69 

Pac.  319    1323 

McNeal  v.  Gossard,  68  Kan.  ll3, 

74  Pac.  628 444 

McNeil,  Re,  3  Mass.  287   10 

V.  Garland.  27  Ark.  343    .  .      958 
V.  Suffolk  County,  114  App. 
Div.  761,  100  N.  Y.  S. 

239     1119 

McNemar  v.  McNemar,  143  111. 

App.   184    267.     268 

McNiel  V.  Davidson,  37  Ind.  336     938 
Macnifl'e  v.  Ludington,  67  How. 
Pr.    (N.   Y.)    13,    13   Abb.   N. 

Cas.   (N.  Y.)   407 710,     899 

Macomber   v.   Peck,   39   la.   351     443 
McPherson,  Re,  129  La.  182,  55 

So.    756    888,     904 

V.  Cox,  80  N.  Y.  472 489 

V.  Cox,    96    U.    S.    404,    24 

U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   746 667 

673,  728,  974,  1036,  1087 
V.  McPherson,  2  Leg.  Chron. 

(Pa.)    342    465,     467 

V.  Rathbone,    7    Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    216   199 

McPIierson's    Case,    5    Pa.    Dist. 

Ct.  22    61,       70 

McQuesten     v.    Attv.-Gen.,     187 
Mass.  185,  72  N.E.  965   1147 


clxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

McQuhae  v.  Rey,  2  Misc.  476, 
22  X.  Y.  S.  375,  alfirmed  3 
Misc.   550,   23   N.   Y.   S.   16.. 

906,     909 
McRae    v.    Mattoon,     13     Pick. 

(Mass.)     53    334 

McRaven   v.    Dameron,    82    Cal. 

57,  23  Pac.  33    574,     602 

McRea    v.    Insurance    Bank,    16 

Ala.  755    341,     342 

V.  Warehime,  49  Wasli.  194, 

94  Pac.  924 736, 

874,    1010,    1015,    1016, 

1043.  1046,  1047 
!McTavish  v.  Denning,  Antli.  N. 

P.  113    208 

McVev   V.  Cantrell,  8   Hun    (N. 

Y.)\522    538 

McWhirter     v.     Donaldson,     36 

Utah   293,    104    Pac.    731 

125,   127,  1171 
McWhorter    v.    Bloom,    3    N.    J. 

L.  545    30 

McWilliams      v.       Hopkins,      4 
Rawle    (Pa.)    382.  .549, 

553,  563,     565 
V.  Jenkins,     72      Ala.     480 

977,  989, 1024,  1029 
Madden  v.  Watts,  59   S.   C.  81, 

37    S.   E.   209    598.     601 

Maddox,    Re,    93    Md.    727,    50 
Atl.  487,  55  1..R.A.  298 

22,  47,  52,   79,   86,       88 
V.  Crancli,     4     Har.     Mcll. 

(Md.)    343    544 

Maddux   v.    Bcvan,    39    Md.   485 

384,   391,     396 
V.  Bottineau,   34   App.  Cas. 

(D.   (;.)    119    830 

Madipan.    Re,    66    Minn.    9,    68 

N.   W.   1102    1268 

Madina  Quarry  Co..  Re,  191 
Fed.   815,    reversing    182    Fed. 

508,  112  ('.  C.  A.  329    822 

Maestretti,  Re,  30  Nev.  187,  93 

Pac.    1004    1127,  1175 

Maggie,    Re,    27    Ap.    Div.    129, 

51    N.  Y.  S.   1055    90 

Maglougliliii    V.    Clark,    35     ill. 

Api).    251     774 

Magnolia  Metal  Co.  v.  Sterling- 
wortli  Ilailwav-Supplv  Co.,  6 
\.  V.  Ann.  Cas.  4(I5,  '26  Misc. 
63,  50  N.  Y.  S.  478,  aflirnK-d 
37  App.  Div.  366.  56  \.  Y.  S. 

UJ    252,   253,    258,     265 

Magoon,  Re,  16  Hawaii  761 307 


are  to  pages.] 

Magowan  v.  Rickey,  64  N.  J.  L. 

402,  45   Atl.   804    646 

Maguire  v.  Bass,  8  La.  Ann.  270     416 
Mahafly   v.   Territory.    11    Okla. 

213,  66   Pac.  342  ' 1097, 

1099,  1113,  1114 
Mahler  v.   Ilyinan,   17   X.  Y.   S. 

588 " 575.  577,  602,     603 

Mahoe,  Re,  3  Hawaii  255..  1209,  1211 
Mahon  v.  Mahon,  50  Super.  Ct. 

(X.  Y.)    92   468 

Mahone  v.  Southern  Tel.  Co.,  33 

Fed.  702    1022 

Mahoney  y.  Bergin,  41  Cal.  423 

768,     966 
V.  Middlesex     County,     144 

Mass.  459,  11  X.  E.  689     522 
V.  Middleton.   41   Cal.   41..      414 
Main  y.  Johnson,  7   \Vash.  321, 

35  Pac.  67    777 

Main  Electric   Co.  v.  Cohen,   72 

Misc.  30.  129  X.  Y.  S.  66 531 

Mains.  Re,  121  Mich.  G08,  80  X. 
\Y.  714,  6  Detroit  Leg.  X.  589 

15,    1168,    1196,    1198.  1199 
Mains  y.  Getchen,  111  X.  Y.  S. 

598    733,  889,     910 

v.  Wliiting,    87    Mich.    172, 

49  X.  W.  559 136 

Maires,  Appeal  of,  189  Pa.  St. 
99,  41  Atl.  988,  43   W.  X.  C. 

311    1216,  1253,  1254 

Major  V.  Gibson,   1   Patt.   &  H. 

(Va.)    48    863,     873 

Majors     v.     Hickman,     2     Bibb. 

(Kv.)    217    793,     943 

Makin   v.    Wickliffe,    16    Ky.   L. 

Rep.    240     .' 907 

Malcom,  Re,  129  App.  Div.  226. 
113  X.  Y.  S.  666.  reversing  60 
Misc.   324,    113   X.   Y.    S.   255 

218,  231,     543 
Mallory   v.   Burlington,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,    53    Kan.    557,    36 

Pac.    1059    149 

v.  ^Mariner,   15  \\is.   172... 

401,  407,     408 
Malone  v.  Gerth,   TOO  Wis.   166. 

75  X.  W.  972    548,     552 

y.  Lebus,    (Ky.)    96    S.    W. 

519     " 296,     302' 

V.  Slierman,    49    Super.    Ct. 

(X.    Y.)    530    583 

Malonev,   I^-.  21   X.  D.  157,  129 

'  X.  W.   74    1307 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


clxxi 


[References 

Maloney   v.    Uouglus    County,    2 

Neb.     (unollicial)     Rep. 

39(i,  Sn  N.  W.  248  91)2,  1053 

V.  Terrv,  70  Ark.  189,  66 

S.  *VV.  919,  72  S,  W. 

570  581,  597 

Malville  v.  Kappoler,    (Cal.)    .37 

Pac.   934    895 

Manby,  Re,  3  Jur.  N.  S.  259,  26 

L.  .T.  Ch.  313    538 

Manchester  Bank  v.  Fellows,  28 

X.  H.  302    4]  7,  419,     436 

Manchester   Liners   v.   Virginia- 
Carolina    Chemical    Co.,    194 

red.  463    335 

Mandel  v.  Peet,  18  Ark.  244    .  .      460 
Manderson,   Appeal    of,   113    Pa. 

St.   031.   6  Atl.  893    894 

Mandeville      v.      Guernsey,      38 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  225 197 

T.  Reynolds,  68  N.  Y.  528, 
affirming  5  Hun  338   .  . 

357,     384 
Maneaty  v.  Steele,  112  111.  App. 

19    940 

Mangum  v.  Ball,  43  Miss.  288,  5 

Am.  Rep.  488   391 

Manliattan    Cloak,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Dodge,    120    Ind.   1,   21    N.   E. 

344,  6  L.R.A.  369   301,     303 

Manheim,  Re,  113  App.  Div.  136, 

99  N.   Y.   S.   87    .  .    15, 

1197,  1198,  1201,  1320 
V.  Woods,    213    Mass.    537, 

100  X.   E.   747    .  .    282.     2S3 
Manley   v.   Felty,   140   Ind.    194, 

45  X.  E.  74    .  .  .  .  .  .    515,  743,     749 

Mann  v.  Buford,  3  Ala.  312,  37 

Am.    Dec.   691     529 

V.  Fairehild,  3  Abb.  App. 
Dec.  152,  2  Keyes  106, 
affirming   5    Barb.    108, 

14  Barb.  548    681,     682 

Manning  v.  Borland,  83  Me.  125, 

21    Atl.    837    944,     956 

V.  Clark.  40  Fed.  121   .  .740,     951 

V.  Frencli,  149  Mass.  3i)l, 
21  X.  E.  945,  4  L.R.A. 
339    1168 

V.  Ilavdeii.  5  Sawy.  (U.  S.) 
360,  16  Fed.'  Cas.  Xo. 
9,043,  reversed  106  U. 
S.  586,  1  St.  Ct.  617, 
27  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  306 
249,  250,  258,  296,  298, 

302,     487 


are  to  pages.] 

Manning  v.  Leigliton.  65  Vt.  84, 
26  Atl.  258,  24  L.R.A. 

684    995,   998,   1020 

V.  Manning,  61  Ga.  137   ...    1075 
V.  Osgood,    151    Mass.    148, 

23    X.    E.    732    .  .     701,     885 
V.  Perkins,   85   Me.   172,   26 

Atl.  1015   674 

V.  Roanoke,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122 
X.  C.  824,  28  S.  E.  963 

24,   39 
V.  Sprague,  148  Mass.  18, 
18  X.  E.  673,  12  Am. 
St.  Rep.  508,  1  L.R.A. 

516  055,  657,  662,  674 

Mansfield    v.    Dorland,    2     Cal. 

507    987,  1031 

V.  Olsen,    (Miss.)    4  So.  545     848 
V.  Wallace,  217  111.  610,  75 

X.   E.   082    298,     945 

V.  Wilkerson,  26  Iowa,  482     608 
Manson  v.  Stacker,    (Tenn.)    36 

S.  W.  188   1033 

Manufacturers'     Paper     Co.     v. 
Lindblom,  80  111.  App.  267   .  . 

267,  468,     563 
Maraist  v.  Caillier,  30  La.  Ann. 

1087    378 

Marble   v.  Jamesville   jMfg.   Co., 

163  Mass.  171,  39  X.  E.  998  .  .      412 
Marble    Products    Co.,    Re,    199 

Fed.    668    818,     822 

Marbourg    v.     Smith,     11     Kan. 

554    484 

March  v.  Ludlum,  3  Sandf.  Ch. 

(X.  Y.)   35   191 

Marco  v.  Low,  55  Me.  549    ....      469 
Marcom    v.    Wyatt,    117    X.    C. 

129.    23    S.    E.    169    308,     310 

Mardcn  v.  Dorthy,  12  App.  Div. 

176,  42  X.  Y.  S.  834 280,     283 

Mardis    v.    Shackleford,    4    Ala. 
493  .  .  521,  5S8,  593,  594,  595, 

596,  597,  598,  599,  601 
Mare  v.  Lewis.  4  Ir.  Eq.  219..  560 
Marion  County  v.  Rives,  133  Ky. 

477,  118  S.  W.  309    852,  1021 

Mark  v.  Buffalo,  87  X.  Y.  184.  .      479 
Markey  v.  Louisiana  &  M.  R.  R. 

Co.,  185  Mo.  348,  84  S.  W.  61      414 
Markley  v.  Amos,  8  Rich.  L.   (S. 

C.)    468    490,     491 

Marks  v.  Hastings,  101  Ala.  165, 

13   So.   297    .  ." 650 

JNIarling  v.  Robrecht,  13  W.  Va. 

440    4(;;> 


clxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Marquat  v.  Mulvy,  9   How.  Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    460   1045 

Marrow  v.  Brinkley,  85  Va.  55, 

6   S.  E.   G05    418,  438,     439 

Marschall  v.  Smith,    (Tex.)    132 

S.   W.  812    1050,  1066 

Marsh,    Re,     (Utah)     129    Pac. 

4]1   1262,  1266 

V.  Ellsworth,  50  N.  Y.  309, 
affirming  36  How.  Pr. 
532,  2  Sweeny  589    ... 

119,  121,     533 
V.  Gold,    2    Pick.     (Mass.) 

285    323,  519,     521 

V.  Holbrook,  3  Abb.  App. 
Dec.  (N.  Y.)  176  ..664, 

792,  794,     808 
V.  Howe,  36  Barb.  049    ... 

187,     193 
V.  Mitchell,    26    N.    J.    Eq. 

497    348 

V.  Pierce,    110    N.    Y.    639, 

17  N.  E.  729    474 

V.  Whitmore,  21  Wall.  178, 
22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  482, 
affirming  1  Hask.  391, 
]6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,122 
293,  306,  548,  555,  571, 

593,     600 
Marshall  v.  Betner,  17  Ala.  832     858 
V.  Cliff,    4    Campb.     (Eng.) 

133    347 

V.  Cooper,    43    Md.    46    ... 

1053,  1057 
V.  Doasett,  57  Ark.  93,  20  S. 

\V.  810    747,     748 

V.  Joy,  17  Vt.  546 280,     282 

V.  Meech,  51  N.  Y.  140.  10 

Am.  Rep.  572 619,     989 

V.  Moore,  30  111.  321    .  .  376, 

378,     498 
V.  Nagel,   1    Bailey  L.    (S.) 

C.)    308    411 

V.  Piggott,     78     Neb.     722, 

]  1    N.   W.   592    .  .    869,     882 

Marston  v.  Baerenklan,  11   Misc. 

620,  32  N.  Y.  R.  785,  allirnicd 

13   .Misc.   13,  33  N.   Y.  S.  994     918 

Martin,  Re,  73  App.  Div.  505,  77 

N.   Y.   S.   192.. ..    611, 

(!12.     619 

Re.   167   Fed.  236    574,     575 

Re,  6  Bcav.  (Kng.)  337,  340 

IHIS,  1228.  1298 
Re,  21  W.  I!.  (Kng.)  Ill  .  .  IIHI 
V.    .Andnson,    21    Ca.    .-SOI  .  .      219 


are  to  pages.] 

JNIartin    v.     I'elmont    Bank,    13 

Ohio  250    773 

V.  Campbell,    11    Rich.    Eq. 

(S.  C.)   205   953 

V.  Capital    Ins.    Co.,    85    la. 
643,   52   N.   W.   534    .  . 

383.  395,     494 
V.  Clarke,    8    R.    I.    389,    5 

Am.   Rep.   580    670 

V.  Com..  1   Mass.  347   1159 

V.  Corscaddcn,      34      Mont. 

308,  86  Pac.  33    639 

V.  Harrington,  57  Miss.  208  1024 
V.  Hawks,     15     Johns.      (N. 

Y.)    405    ..    1031,  1045,  1048 
V.  Judd,   60  111.   78    .  .    415,     493 
V.  Kanouse,     11     How.    Pr. 
(N.    Y.)     507,    2    Abb. 

Pr.   327    860 

V.  Kanouse,     17     How.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    146    1056 

V.  Kennedy,     83     Kv.     335, 

344    . ". \ 1028 

V.  ilartin,  etc.,  Co.,  27  App. 
Cas.  (D.  C.)  59,  7  Ann. 

Cas.  47  401 

V.  Piatt,  51  Hun  429,  4  N. 

Y.   S.   359    208 

V.  Piatt,   5   N.   Y.   St.   Rep. 

284    731,     948 

V.  Rex.    6    S.    &    R.     (Pa.) 

296    250 

V.  Skehan,    2    Colo.    614    .  .      131 

V.  State,  40  Ark.  364    488 

V.  State,    39    Kan.    576,    18 

Pac.   472    1118 

V.  State.   16   Ohio  364    1111 

V.  Taplov,  119  Mass.  116  .  . 

148,    150,     151 
V.  Throckmorton,      15      Pa. 

Super.   Ct.  632    .  .    839,     973 
V.  Veeder,    20    ^Vis.    466    .  . 

654,     687 
V.  Walker,  Abb.   Adm.  579, 

16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9.170     419 
INlartindalc  v.  Brock,  41  Md.  571      317 
V.   Falkner.  2  C.   P..  706.  52 
E.   C.    L.    706.   :;    Dowl. 
&  L.  600,  10  Jur.  Kil  .  .      958 
Marline  v.  i.owcnstoiii.  68  N.  Y. 

456    12 

Martinez  v.   Vives,  ;i2   La.   .\nii. 

505    505 

:Martini    v.    Smith.    110    S.    W. 
413,    3;!    Ky.    L.    \\v\>.    .")S2     . 

lOGG.  1075 


TAULE    OF    CASES. 


clxxiii 


[References 

Martinson  v.  Clowes,  52  L.  T.  N. 

S.   706,  33   W.  R.  555    537 

Marvel    v.    Babbitt,    143    Mass. 

226,  9  N.  E.  500 530 

V.  Manouvrier,  14  La.  Ann. 
3,   74  Am.  Dec.  424    .  . 

443,     518 
Marvin  v.  Ell  wood,  11  Paige  (N. 

Y.  365  .  .   574.  575.  576,     577 
V.  Marvin,     22     Civ.     Proc. 

274,  19  N.  Y.  S.  371  .  .    1052 
Marx,    Re,    115    App.    Div.    448, 
JOl  N.  Y.  S.  680. .llfiO, 

1250,  1251 
V.  McMorran,      130      Mich. 
406.   99   N.   W.  396,   11 
Detroit  Leg.   N.   80    .  . 

701,     779 
V.  Press  Piib.  Co.,  134  N.  Y. 

561,  31  N.  E.  918 140 

Maslibir,  Re,  44  App.  Div.  632, 
7   N.   Y.   Ann.   Cas.   1,   60   N. 

Y.  S.  451   1308 

Mason,   Re,    140   N.   Y.   658,   35 

N.  E.  054 58 

V.  Edward  Thompson  Co., 
94    Mhm.    472,    103    N. 

W.   507    367 

v.  Luce,    110    Cal.    232,    48 

Pac.   72    776 

V.  Ring,  3  Abb.  Dec.  (N. 
Y.)  210,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N. 
S.   (N.  Y.)   322   ..   277, 

745,  746,     948 
V.  Stewart,  6  La.  Ann.  736 

375,     439 

v.  Wolkowich,       150       Fed. 

699.    80    C.    C.    A.    435, 

10  L.R.A.(N.S.)    765..      360 

Mason's     Hall     Tavern     Co.     v. 

Nokes,  22  L.  T.  N.  S.   (Eng.) 

503    305 

Massachusetts        &        Sonlliorn 
Const.  Co.  v.  Gill's  Creek  Tp., 

48  Fed.  145   976,  983, 

987,  9S8,  989,     991 
Massey  v.   Colville,  45   N.  J.  L. 

119,    40    Am.    Rep.    754     117 
V.  Rapelje,  5  U.  C.  C.  P.  134     443 
Massie  v.  Mann,   17   la.   131    .  . 

125,     128 
Massieu's     Succession,     24     La. 

Ann.  237    416,     432 

Mast  V.  Easton,  33  Min.  161,  22 
N.  W.  253 605 


are  to  pages.] 

Masten  v.  Indiana  Car  &  Fomul- 
ry   Co.,   25   Ind.  App.   175,  57 

N.  E.   148    1143 

Master  v.  Miller,  4  T.  R.   (Eng.) 

340    658 

Builder's    Assoc,     v.     Dom- 
ascio,  16  Colo.  App.  25, 

63   Pac.  782    342 

Masterman  v.  LeClaire,  4  Minn. 

163    410,  405,     467 

Masters,  Re,  4  Dowl    (Eng.)    18, 

1  Hurl  &  W.  348   670,     729' 

Mathcny   v.   Farley,   66   W.   Va. 
680,  60  S.  E.  1060  .  .  243,  244, 

792,   793,   796,  799,   800,     911 
Mather      v.      Phelps,      2      Root 

(Conn.)    150,  1  Am.  Dec.  65..      34a 
Matheson  v.  Rogers,  84  S.  C.  458, 
19    Ann.   Cas.    1006,   05    S.   E. 

1054,  67  S.  E.  476   775 

Mathews  v.  Damainville,  100 
App.  Div.  311,  15  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  430,  91  N.  Y. 
S.  524,  reversing  43 
Misc.  546,  89  N.  Y.  S. 

493    27a 

V.  Giles,    108    Ga.    304,    33 
S.  E,  1006   .  .   709,  710, 

889,  892,     899- 
V.  Lincoln  County,  90  Minn. 

348,   97   N.   W.   101    ..    1125 
V.  Massey,  4  Baxt.   (Tenn.) 

450 385,     478 

Mathot  V.  Triebel,  98  App.  Div. 
328,  90  N.  Y.  S.  903   ....   980, 

994,  1059,  1082 
Mattern  v.  McDivett,  113  Pa.  St. 

402,  6  Atl.  83    870,     959 

Matter  of — see  name  of  party. 
Matthews,  Re,  5  Pa.  L,  J.  Rep. 
149,  4  Am.  L.  J.  350,  1 
Phila.  292,  9  Leg.  Int. 
11  .  .159,  162,  180,  189,  194 
V,  Hoagland,  48  N.  J.  Eq. 
455,  21  Atl.  1054  .  .198, 

213,     215 

V.  Minister,    20    Q.    B.    D. 

(Eng.)   141,  57  L.  J.  Q. 

B.   49,   57   L.   T.   N.   S. 

922,   36   W.   R.    178,  52 

J.  P.  260 402,  450,     457 

V.  Robinson,    7    Kan,    App. 

118,  53  Pac.  81    273 

V.  Spangenberg,  15  Fed.  813     630' 
V.  Tufts,   87   N.   Y.   568    .  . 

110,     117,- 


clxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Matthews  v.  Williams  Mfir.  Co., 
98  Me.  234,  oG  Atl.  75!) 

873,  9f;0,  001 
Mattliis  V.  Cameron.  02  Mo.  504  562 
Mattice  v.  Wilcox,  7]  Hun  487, 
24  X.  Y.  S.  1060,  affirmed  147 
N.  Y.  624,  42  N.  E.  270,  59 
Hun  620  mem.,  30  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.  914,  13  N.  Y.  S.  330, 
affirmed  without  opinion  129 
N.   Y.  633,  29  X.  E.  1030.  .  . 

133,     135 
Matter  v.  Schaffner,  53  Ind.  245 

1176,  1178 
Mattocks  V.  YounjT,  60  'Me.  459  .  .  585 
Maulsbv,  Ex  p.,  13  Md.  625    .  . 

164,     199 
V.  Reifsnider.    69    Md.    154, 

14  Atl.  505   lis 

Maury  v.  Fitzwater,  88  Fed.  768 

245,     443 
Maxev  v.  Besser,  44  Tex.  500 .  . 

839,     840 
Maxfield  v.  Carr,  8  Kulp   (Pa.) 

214    499 

Maxham  v.  Place,  40  Vt.  434   .  . 

155,     163 
Maxon    v.    Cain,    22    App.    Uiv. 

270,  47  X.  Y.  S.  855 681 

Maxwell,  Ex  p.,  4  Dowl.   (Eng.) 

87    613 

Re,  51   Hun  640  mem.,  4  X. 

Y".  S.  576    ..    767,  770,     771 
Re,  66  Hun  151,  21  X.  Y.  S. 

209    496 

V.  Harper,  51  Wash.  351,  98 

Pac.  756    209 

V.  Owen,    7    Cold.     (Tenn.) 

030 497,     500. 

V.  Pate,    (Miss.)    16  So.  529     405 
Maxx   V.    Fore,    51    Mo.    69,    11 

Am.  Rep.  432   447 

May  V.  ]5rown,  3  B.  &  C.  113, 
10  E.  C.  L.  24,  4  Dowl. 
&  R.  070,  2  U  J.  K.  B. 

212    139 

V.  Si!)lev,  09  (In.  133    802 

V.  Williams,   17   Ala.  23    ..        27 
Ma\bin    v.    liaymund,    15    Nat. 
Bankr."^     Iteg.     353,     10 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  9,338    .  .      820 
V.  Piuvmond,  4  Am.  L.  T.  X. 

S.    21     073 

Maycll   V.   Spraf,'ue,  8  Cow.    (X. 

Y.)    110    470 

Maver,    I've,   84    I  Inn   539,  32    X. 

Y.  S.  850 744 


are  to  pages.] 

Mayer  v.  Blease,  4  S.  C.  10 

249,  359,  497,  500,     503 
V.  Foulkrod,    4    Wash.    503, 
511,    10    Fed.    (as.    Xo. 

9,432    380,     400 

V.  Sparks,      3      Kan.      Ajjp. 

602,  ^5  Pac,  249 497 

Mayes  v.  Phillips,  00  Miss.  547     530 
Maynard,    Re,    1    Walk.     (Pa.) 

472    301,     304 

V.  Briggs,  20  Vt.  94 875 

V.  Sigman,  05  Xeb.  590,  91 

X,   W.   570    646 

Mayor  v.  Berry,  1  W.  Bl.  (Eng.) 

636,  4  Burr.  2109    114 

Mays  V.  Sanders,  90  Tex.  132,  37 

S.  W.  595 736,  1004,  1030 

Mazureau    v.    Morgan,    25    La. 

Ann.    281     .  .     661,    675,    676,     728 
Meacham    v.    Dudley,    6    Wend. 

(X.  Y.)    514    445,     563 

Mead  v.  Altueld.  136  111.  298,  20 

X.   E.  338    340 

V.  Buckner,  2  La.  280    499 

V.  Mead,  28  S.  D.   131,  132 

X.   W.   701    426 

Meade,  Re,  (Cal.)  49  Pac.  5 415 

Mealer  v.  Gilbert,  60  S.  W.  8,  22 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1223,  1523 

948,     950 
V.  State,  32  Tex.  Crim.  102, 

22  S.  W.  142    328 

Meaney     v.     Reid-Xewfoundland 

Co.,  39  Xova  Scotia  407     632 
V.  Rosenberg,    32    Misc.    96, 
65  X.  Y.  S.  497,  revers- 
ing 28  Misc.  520,  59  X. 

Y.    S.    582    371,     710 

Mechanics  &  Traders  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Levi,   40  La.  Ann.   135,  3  So. 

559    1024 

Mechanics'  Fire  Ins.  Co.'s  Case, 

5  Abb.  Pr.    (X.  Y.)    444    1161 

Meek  v.  Perry,  36  ISIiss.  245    .  .      273 
Megary  v.   Funtis,  5  Sandf.   (X^. 

Y.)    370    304 

Meguire  v.   Corwine,   101    U.   S. 

108.    25    U.    S.     (L.    ed.)     899  1254 
Meighan      v.      American      Grass' 
Twine  Co.,  154  Fed.  340,  83  C. 

C.  A.   124    1022,    1043,  1081 

Meinhard   v,    Youngblood,   41    S. 

C.  312,  19  S.  E.  675   342 

Meis,    Re,    18    Am.    Hankr.    Kcp. 

104    818 

Meifllahn  v.  Hanken,  18  X.  Y.  S. 
301    474 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


■  clxxv 


[References 

Meister  v.   People,   31    IMieli.   90   mO 
Melcher    v.    .TelTerson    City    Kx- 
chnngo    l^ank,    85    Mo. 

3()2    38 1.  388,     405 

V.  Scnings,  72  Mo.  4n(> 461 

Mellen  v.  U.  S..  13  Ct.  CI.    (U. 

S.)    71    913 

Mellon  V.  Fulton.  22  Okla.  630, 
98  Pac.  911.  19  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
900  . .  701,  706,  707,  724,  780, 

781.   791,  873.     890 
Melms    V.    Pabst    Brewing    Co., 
93  Wis.  153,  60  N.  W.  518,  57 

Am.  St.  Rep.  899    269 

Meloche  v.  Deguire,  34  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  24   074,     675 

Meloy   V.   Meloy,    24    App.    Cas. 

(D.  C.)   239   ..   838,  839,  994,  1037 
Memphis  Gaslight  Co.,   Re,   105 
Tenn.  268.   60  S.   W.  206,   80 
Am.    St.    Rep.    880    ....    993,  1018 
Memphis    Consol.,    etc.,    Co.    v. 
Simpson,   118   Tenn.   532,   103 

S.  W.  788   512 

Memphis  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Roe,  118 

Tenn.  601,  102  S.  W.  343 378 

Mendelsohn.   Re.   150  App.   Div. 

445,  135  X.  Y.  S..  438    

1235,  1243,  1251 
Mcnefee  v.  State,  149  S.  W.  138  157 
Menendez  v.  Larionda.   3  Mont. 

(La.)   256  327 

Merced   Co.   v.   Hicks,    67     Cal. 

108,  7  Pac.  179   144 

Mercer  v.  Graves,  L.R.  7  Q.  B. 

(Eng.)  499 979 

V.  King,  1   F.  &  F.    (Eng.) 

490 565 

Merchant  v.  Pielke.  10  X.  D.  48, 

84  X.  W.  574   643 

V.  Sessions,  5  Civ.  Proc.  (X. 

Y.)   24   1072 

Merchants  Bank  v.  Thomas,  121 
Fed.  306,  57  C.  C.  A.  374,  10 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  299   823 

Merchants'  X^at.  Bank  v.  Arm- 
strong, 107  Ga.  479,  33  S.  E. 

473 1066,  1007,  1071 

v.  Eustis,  8  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

350.  28  S.W.  227.. 317,     812 
V.  Townsend    (Tex.)    147   S. 

W.  617 627 

Merchants  Protective  Ass'n  v. 
Jacobson,  22  Idaho,  636,  127 
Pac.  315   653,  662,  678     679 


are  to  pages.] 

Mercier  v.  Mercier.  2  Dall.  (Pa.) 
142,    1    V.   S.    (L.   ed.) 

324   431 

V.  Pearlstone.     7     Abl).    Pr. 

(N.   Y.)    325    469 

Meredith    v.   Woodward.    16    W. 

X.  C.    (Pa.)    140   552 

Meriden  Hydro-Carbon  Arc 
Light  Co.  v.  Anderson.  Ill  111. 

App.   449    353,   492,     493 

Merriam,  Re,  27  App.  Div.  112, 

50  X.  Y.  S.  114   216 

Merrick    v.    Bonness,    66    Minn. 

135.   68   N.   W.   850    845 

Merrill    v.    Gunnison,    145    Cal. 

544,  79  Pac.  67    .  . 888 

Merriman  v.  Xewman.  20  W.  R. 

(Eng.)   369 543 

V.  Peck,  96  Mich.  603,  55  X. 

W.   1021    512 

Merritt  v.  Annan,   7  Paige    (X. 

Y.)    151   468 

V.  Campbell,  47   Cal.  542..      460 
V.  Clow,  2  Tex.  582   .  .   353, 

418,    492,     585 
V.  Graves.     52     Wash.     57, 

100  Pac.  164    305 

V.  Lambert,    10    Paige     (X'. 

Y.)  352  ..  16,  6l0,  015,     654 
Merryman  v.  Euler,  59  ]\Id.  588, 

43  "Am.  Rep.  564   ..   273,  275,     282 
Mertens  v.  Wakefield,   35   Misc. 

501.  71  X.  Y.  S.  1062   211 

Mertian,    Re.    29    Hun    (X.   Y.) 

459 609,     620 

Merwin  v.  Richardson,  52  Conn. 

223 312 

Meserve  v.  Hicks,  24  X.  H.  295     328 
Mesher  v.  Iddings,  72  la.  553,  34 

X.   W.   328    634 

Mesker  v.  McCort,  44  S.  W.  975     632 
Messenger  v.  Murphy,  33  Wash. 

353,  74  Pac.  480  " 312,     314 

Messman  v.  Ihlcnfr>ldt,  89  Wis. 

585,  62  X.  W.  522 647 

Metcalf     V.     Denson,     4     Baxt. 

(Tenn.)    505    527.     528 

Metcalfe   v.   Braxlshaw.   145    111. 
124,  33  X.  E.  1116,  36 
Am.    St.    Rep.    478.    af- 
firming 43  111.  App.  286     836 
Metheny   v.   Bohn.   164   111.   495, 

45  X.  E.  1011   _     848 

Metropolitan  Coal  Consumers' 
Ass'n,  Re.  45  Ch.  D.  (Eng.) 
606 9^5,     950 


clxx\d 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Metropolitan   St.  R.  Co.  v.  Op- 
penheim,  58  App.  Div.  510,  69 

N.  Y.  S.  524 ..    1.307 

Metz  V.  Abnev,  64  S.  C.  254,  42 

S.  E.  103  ..' 59!),     001 

Metzler  v.  Romine,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
171,    20    Phila.    247,    47    Le?. 

Int.  484 53.3,     534 

Mculey  V.  Zeigler,  23  Tex.  88  .  .      270 
Mexico  V.  De  Arangoiz,  5  Duer 
(X.  Y.)    643,   1   Abb.   Pr.  437 

417,     429 
Meyer  v.  Littell,  2  Pa.  St.  177.  .      437 
V.  McCumber,    75    111.    App. 

119   873,  958,     959 

Mevers  v.  Bloon,  20  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  554,  50  S.  W.  217 

985,  1029 
V.  Lake,  1  Grant  Ch.  (N. 

C.)  305  538 

Meysenberg  v.  Engelke,  18  Mo. 

App.    346    182 

Miami  County  v.  Mowbray,  160 

Ind.  10,  66  N.  E.  46 715,     814 

Michael  v.  Foil,  100  N.  C.  178, 
6  S.  E.  264,  6  Am.  St. 

Rep.  577    184 

V.  Matson,  81  Kan.  360,  105 
Pac.    537    .  .    155,    159, 

181,  1114 
Michel,  Re.  95  Fed.  803,  1   Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  665 817 

Michigan  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Neph- 
ew,  128   INIicli.  599.  87  N.  W. 
753,  8   Detroit  Leg.  N.  784..      353 
Michigan  Stove  Co.  v.  Harwood 

Hardware  Co.,  71  111.  App.  240     317 
Miction  V.  Gravier,  11  La.  Ann. 

596   889 

Micklethwaite      v.      Rhodes,      4 

Sandf.  Cli.    (N.  Y.)    434    120 

Middiebury  Bank  v.  Rutland,  33 

Vt.  414    312 

Middlesex     Turnijike     Corp.     v. 

'iufts,  8  Mits.s.  266 541 

Middleton   v.    Bankers,  etc.,   Co., 

32  Fed.  524 780 

V.  Pollock,  4  Cli.  D.  49,  46 

L.  J.  Cli.  39 559 

V.  Welles,     4     Bro.     P.     C. 

(Kng.)   245 289 

.Middbtou  II  I'.ank  v.  Hunt  iiigton, 
13  .Abb.  Pr.    I  N.  V.)    402,  403 

417,     446 
Midgett  V.  Vaiin,   158  X.  C.   12S. 

73   S.   E.   801     H5S 


are  to  pages.] 

Miedreich  v.  Rank.  40  Ind.  App. 
393,  82  X.  E.  117   .  .  455,  457, 

1030,   1044,   1045,   1049,   107.5- 
Mignogna    v.     Chiaffarelli,     151 
Mo.  App.  395,  131  S.  W.  769 

417,     456 
Mikesell   v.   Wilson   County,   82 

Kan.  502,   108   Pac.  829    1148 

Milan  v.  State,  24  Ark.  346 331 

Miles  v.  Clarke,  4  Bosw.  (N.  Y. ) 
632,  affirming  2   Bosw. 

709 126 

v.  Collins,   1   Mete.    (Mass.) 

308   661 

V.  De  Wolf.  8  Ind.  App.  153, 

176,   34   N.   E.   114 

779,  888.  889,  902,     gO.''^ 
V.  Ervin.  1  McCord  Eq.   (S. 
C.)    524,    16    Am.    Dec. 

623 274,  275,  287,     297 

V.  Mutual  R.  F.  L.  Assoc, 
108  Wis.  421.  84  X.  W. 

159 677.     687 

V.  O'Hara,  1  S.  &  R.   (Pa.) 

32   329 

V.  Stevenson,    80    Md.    358, 

30  Atl.  646 1172 

V.  Walker,  66  Xeb.  728,  92 

X.  W.  1014 641 

]\rilgraum.  Re,  129  Fed.  827,  12 

Am.   Baidcr.  Rep.   306    354 

Millar  v.  Criswell,  3  Pa.  St.  449 

489,    490,     491 
V.  Kanadv,   5   Ont.  L.   Rep. 

412    '. 699,     958 

Millard  v.  .Jordan,  76  Mich.  131, 
42  X.  W.  1085  .  .  728, 
793,      794,      804,      805, 

1048,   1050 
v.  Truax,  50  Mich.   343,  15 

X.  W.  501    773 

Millaudon  v.  McMicken,  7  I\Iart. 

X.  S.   (La.)    34   408.     508 

.Miller,    Ex    p.,    37    Ore.    304.    60 

i'ae.  999 1247,  1307 

Re,  22  W.  X.  C.   11,  5    Pa. 

Co.  Ct.  522 950 

v.  ]?allerino,  135  Cal.  560, 
67  Pac.  1046,  68  Pac. 
1)00   ....    70:),  712,  879, 

8S1,     956. 

v.  Real,  26  Ind.  234   886 

v.   Bernecker.  46  Mo.  194   .  .      562 
V.   Chic-ago,   etc.,    K.   Co.,   41 

Fed.   898    635- 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxvii 


[References 

Miller  v.  Continental  Assur.  Co. 

of  America,  23.3  Mo.  91, 

Ann.    Cas.    lfll2C,    102. 

134  S.  W.  1003   .  .   417, 

425.     434 
V.  Dallas    Consol.    Electric 

St.  R.  Co.,  104  Tex.  57, 

133  S.  W.  866.  revers- 
ing 124  S.  W.  453 

405,     407 
V.  Donovan,  13  Idalio,  735, 

13    Ann.    Cas.    259,    92 

Pac.    991     856,      858 

V.  Ednionston,      S      Blackf. 

(Ind.)   291    383,     394 

V.  Gaskins,  3  Rob.  (La.)  94     446 
V.  Gust,  71  Wash.  139,  127 

Pac.   845    119 

y.  Hines,  15  Ga.  197 323 

V.  Huhne,  126   Pa.  St.  277, 

17  Atl.  587,  24  W.  N.  C. 

131   358 

V.  Keitli,  20  :\Iiss.  166 151 

V.  Lane,  13  111.  App.  648  .  . 

383,  395,  396,  398 
V.  Larson,  19  Wis.  463  ...  687 
V.  Laiiglilin,    (Tex.)    147  S. 

W.  711 778 

V.  Miller,  37  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)   1   468 

V.  Newell,  20  S.  C.  123,  47 

Am.  Rep.  833 805, 

873,   1041,  1049 
V.  Palmer,  25  Ind.  App.  357, 

58   N.   E.   213,   81   Am. 

St.  Rep.  107    187,     403 

V.  Penniman,   110  Va.   780, 

67  S.  E.  516 361, 

793,   799,     800 
V.  Preston,  154  Pa.   St.  63, 

25    Atl.    1041     .  .     417, 

439,   500,     501 
V.  Scott,  21   Ark.   396    .      . 

251.  304,     500 
V.  Sliall,  67   Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

446   265 

V.  State.    42    Ela.     266,     28 

So.  208 1116 

V.  State,    69    Miss.    112,    12 

So.  265 1150 

V.  Stocking,   22   Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    623   472 

V.  U.   S.,   133    Fed.   337,   66 

C.  C.  A.  399   349 

V,  Vaugban,  78  Ala.  323  . .      851 


are  to  pages.] 

Miller  v.  Whelan,   158  111.  544, 
42  N.  E.  59  . .272,  273, 

279,     548 
V.  Wilson,  24  Pa.  St.  114  .  . 

560,     591 
Millett  V.  Hayford,  1  Wis.  401 .  . 

889,     904 
Milliard    v.    -Jordan,     76     Mich. 

13],    42   N.   W.    1085    809' 

Milligan    v.   Alabama    Fertilizer 
Co.,   89    Ala.    322,   7    So.    650 

230,     893 
Milliken    v.    McBroom,    38    Mo. 

342   503 

Million  v.  Olinsorg,  10  Mo.  App. 

432 685 

Mill  is  V.  Pcntelow,  92  Hun,  284, 

36  N.  Y.  S.  906   991 

Mills,  Re,  1  Micii.  392,  398 

94,    1170,  1291 
v.  Duryee,  7  Cranch,  481,  3 

U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    411    ..      415. 
V.  Fox,  4  E.  D.  Smith    (N. 

Y.)    220 733,  807,     812 

V.  Mills,  26  Conn.  213 

272,     273 
V.  Pentelow,    92    Hun    284, 

36  N.  Y.  S.  906 1014 

V.  Pulaski  Cir.  Ct.,  Hardin 

(Ky.)   139   1127 

v.  Scott,  43  Fed.  452  .  .  440,     443 
Mills     County     Nat.     Bank     v. 
Perry,    72  "^la.    15,    33    N.    W. 

341,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  228 772 

Milmo  Nat.  Bank  v.  Con  very,  8 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  181,  27  S.  W. 

828   735- 

Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Smith, 

74  111.   197    338 

Milwaukee  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Central 

Trust  Co.   74   Fed.  442 117 

Mimmons   v.  Stewart,   13    S.  C. 

445    893 

Minard  v.  Stillnian,  31  Ore.  164, 
49  Pac.  976,  65  Am.  St.  Rep. 

815 184.  186.     220 

Miner  v.  Markham,  28  Fed.  387       10 
v.  Rickey,  5  Cal.  App.  451, 

90  Pac.  718  .  .  946,  960,     964 
V.  Smith,  6  N.  H.  219   ....      453 
Minnesota     Piionograph    Co.     v. 
Tomlinson,  148   App.  Div.   56, 
132  N.  Y.  S.  1063 614 


clxxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Minto  V.  Baiir,  53  Hiin,  63ft 
mem..  17  Civ.  Proc.  314,  6  N. 
Y.    S.    444.    modified    55    Ilun, 

609.  8  N.  Y.  S.  933    

993,    1041,  1079 
Miocene  Ditcli  Co.  v.  ]Moore,  150 

Fed.  483,  SO  C.  C.  A.  301      383 

Mississippi  Cent.  R.  Co.  v. 
Southern   R.   Assoc,    8    Pliila. 

(Pa.)  107 421 

Missouri    Bank    v.    McKniglit,    2 

Mo.  42   352 

Missouri,   etc.,   R.    Co.    v.   Bacon 
(Tex.)  80  S.  W.  572   .  . 

268,     679 
V.  Ferris,    (Tex.)    99   S.  W. 

896   552 

V.  Groseclose,   50   Tex.   Civ. 
App.  525,  110  S.  W.  477 

634.  643.     647 
V.  Groseclose,  (Tex.)   134  S. 

W.  736 641 

V.  WJlliams,    43    Tex.    Civ. 
App.     549,     96     S.     W. 

1087    178.     203 

V.  Wrisht,  47  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

458,  107  S.  W.  77 

371,   372,     379 

Missouri,  etc..  Telephone  Co.  v. 

Vandevort.    67    Kan.    269.    72 

Pac.   771    ....    345,   346,   347,     348 

Missouri    Pae.    R.    Co.    v.    Fox, 

56  Neb.  746,  77  N.  W. 

130    417 

V.  Smith,   60   Ark.   221,    29 

S.  W.  752    685 

Mitchell,  Re,  1  Am.  Bankr.  Rep. 

687   819 

Re,  57  App.  Div.  22,  9  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  224,  07  N.  Y. 

S.  961 237.  262,     263 

V.  Atkins,  71   Oa.   680,   681 

845,  1023 
V.  Bell,  1  X.  C.  244,  2  Am. 

Dec.  627    291 

V.  Broml)erger,   1    Xcv.    604 

884,  891,     902 
v.   IJroiiiljei^er,  2   Nev.   345, 

90  Am.  Dec.  550  .  .  220,     221 
V.  Colby.  95   la.   202,  63  X. 

\V."769 277,     285 

v.  Cottcii.   3    Fla.    134      ...      478 
V.    iianis.  2  \'('S.  dr.    (i'liig. ) 

137    491 


are  to  pages.] 

Mitchell    V.    Huron    Cir.    Judge, 
53  Mich.  541,  19  N.  W. 

176   116 

V.  Mattiniidv,  1  Met.   (Ky.) 

237    ..." 859 

V.  Milhoan,    11    Kan.    617..      361 
V.  Mitchell.    143    App.    Div. 
172.  127  X.  Y.  S.  1065 

982.  1050.  1085 
V.  Mitchell,  212  Pa.  St.  62, 

61  All.  570   184 

V.  Piqua  Club  Assoc,  15 
Mi.sc  366,  37  N.  Y.  S. 
40ft,  25  Civ.  Proc.  139 .  . 

500.  1063,  1065 
V.  State,    22    Ca.    211,    68 

Am.  Dec  493    1099 

V.  State.  7  Okla.  Crim.  563, 

124  Pac  1112 1114 

V.  State  Board  of  Law  Ex- 
aminers, 155  Mich. 
452.    119    X.    W.    587 

70,       77 
Mitchell's  Case,  12  Abb.  Pr.   (X. 

Y.)     249     164,     199 

Mix   v.    People,    lift    111.   2G5,    4 

>r.  E.  7S.3 420,  427,     430 

Mize  V.  Blalock,  71  Ga.  861    ..    1125 
Moats    V.    Rymer,     18    W.    Va. 

642,  41  Am.   Rep.  703    ..217,     225 
Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Yeates,  67 

Ala.  104    205.     216 

Mock,  Re,   140  Cal.  378,  80  Pac. 

64    24 

Model  Clothing  House  v.  Hirseh, 
42  Ind.  Appr270,  85  X.  E.  719 

209,  331 
Motlatt  V.  Hardin,  22  S.  C.  9..  220 
Mollett,  Re,  154  App.  Div.  92!). 

139  X.  Y.  S.  545    1308 

Moflit  V.  Witherspoon,  32  X.  C. 

185    346 

Moiiawk    Bank    v.    Burrows,    6 

Johns.  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  317   ..98.5,  1054 
Mohr  V.  Sands   (Okla.)    133  Pac 

23S    272 

Moir  V.    Hrown,  9    How.  Pr.    (X. 

\.)    270   540 

Mole  V.  Sniitli.  1  dac.  &  W.  645 

4U3,  4S9 
.Moldugiincy  v.  Kavanagh,  3  Civ. 

j'ror.    (X.   V.)    253    !»96 

.Molson's  I'ank  v.  Boardinan,  47 
I  Inn  135,  14  X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
0.3S    337 


TAni.E    OK    CASKS. 


clxxi: 


I  Ucfoi'ciices 

Mouaglian  v.  Cox,  155  Mass. 
487,  ao  N.  K.  4157,  31 
Am.  St.  Rep.  a").") .  .  G:52, 

G34,  G40,  ()4S,   (i.-.l),     ()51 
V.  Downs,     3     Kill])      ( I'u.) 

133    28G 

Monovweiglit    Scale    Co.    v.    Mc- 
Cormiek,  lOU  Md.  170,  72  Atl. 

537     G38,     043 

Monfort,  Re,  78  App.  Div.  r)G7, 

70  N.  Y.  S.  7G5    716.     817 

Monget   V.   Tessier,    5    La.   Ann. 

165   838 

Monk   V.  Ouimct,   1!)  L.  C.  Jur. 

(Kng.)   71   ]-133 

Monroe,  Re,  2   Connoly  395,  20 

N.  Y.  S.  82   ISO 

V.  Davis,    118    Ky.    806,    82 

S.  W.  450   .  ! 533 

V.  Fold,    72    Cal.    568,    14 

Pae.   514    776 

V.  H.    Weston   Lumber   Co., 

49  La.  Ann.  594,  21  So. 

742   533 

V.  H.   Weston'  Lumber   Co., 

50  La.  Ann.  142,  23  So. 

247     534 

Monscr  v.  Harmon,  90  Ky.  591, 

29  S.  W.  448    020 

Monson  v.  Hawlev,  30  Conn.  51, 

79  Am.  Dec.  233  412,  455 

Montesano    v.    Blair,    12    Wash. 

IBS,  40  Pac.  731    856 

Montesquieu  v.  Sandvs,  18  Ves. 

Jr.    (Eng.)    313    ..". 288 

Montgomery,  Ex  p.,  64  Ala.  403 

101,  ]02,     J03 
V.  Brown,   (Tex.)    31  S.  W. 

1084     959 

V.  Garr,   37   S.   W.   580,   18 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  007 980 

V,  Montgomery,    2     Hawaii 

677    243 

V.  New  Era  Printing  Co., 
229  Pa.  St.  165,  Ann. 
Cas.  19r2A  375,  78  At). 

85     13G,     138 

V.  Perkins,  94  Fed.  23   178 

V.  Pickering,  110  Mass.  227 

225,     22G 
County    V.     Courtney,     105 

Iiid.  311,  4  N.  E".  896.  .      715 
Montreal  Bar  v.  Dull'.  24  Quebec 

Super.   Ct.   478    108 

V.  Sprague's  Mercantile 
Agency,  25  Quebec 
Super.    Ct.    383    109 


are  to  pages.] 

Montrion  v.  Jellorys,  2  C.  &  P. 

113,   J2  E.  C.  L.  50    554 

Moody  V.  Harper,  38  Miss.  599, 

653,  (i(i9 
Mooney  v.  Lloyd,  5  S.  &  U. 

(Pa.)  412  .  .095,  SG9,  Sli 
V.  Mooney,  29  Misc.  707,  7 
N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  257,  02 

N.  Y.  S.  769  1023,  1034 

Moore,  Re,  72  Cal.  359,  13  Pac. 

885  1315 

Re,  70  N.  H.  227,  81  Atl. 

703  1204 

Re,  108  N.  Y.  280,  15  N.  E. 

309  57,   58 

Re,  04  N.  C.  398  IIGS 

V,  Bell,  95  Tex.  151,  OG  S. 

W.  45  1152.  1158 

V.  Bracken.  27  111.  23  

29G,  302 
V.  Bray,  10  Pa.  St.  519.  . 

165,  107,  190,  194 
V.  Cairo  &  Fulton  R.  Co., 

30  Ark.  202  499 

V.  Campbell     Academy,      9 
Yerg.    (Tenn.)     115    .  . 

003,  008,  GG9,     674 

V.  Gidney,  75  N.  C.  34 317 

V.  Jones,    23    Vt.    739,    17 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,708   .  . 

841,  800 
V.  Juyenal,  92  Pa.  St.  484  503 
V.  Manufacturers  Nat. 
Bank,  123  N.  Y.  420, 
25  N.  E.  1048,  11 
L.R.A.  753,  reversing 
51  Hun  472,  4  N.  Y'.  S. 

378    533,     535 

V.  IMoore,    10   Ont.    Pr.   284     909 
V.  Murrell,  50  Ark.  375,  19 

S.   W.   973    .  .391,   395,     407 
V.  Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  37 

Minn.    147     632 

V.  Orr,  ]0  Ind.  App.  89.  37 
N.   E.   554    .  .554,    709, 

711,    779,     902 
V.  Porter,    13    Serg.    &    R. 

(Pa.)     100    544 

V.  Robinson,     92     111.     491 

792,  797,     966 
V,  Staser,  6  Ind.  App.  304, 
32  N.  E.  503,  amrming 
6  Ind.  App.  308,  33  N. 

E.  065    777 

V.  State,  .55  Ind.  360  1156 

V.  State,  5  Sneed  (Tenn.) 

510  1115 


clxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Moore  v.  Strirkling,  46  \V.  Xn. 
515,   33   S.   E.   274,   50 

L.R.A.  279    ]128 

V.  Taylor,    2    How.    Pr.    N. 

S.    (N.  Y.)    343    1072 

V.  Watts,  81  Ala.  261,  2  So. 

278    1)42,     060 

V.  Winston,  66  Ala.  296   ..      571 
Moorman    v.    Wood,     117    Ind. 
144,      19      N.      E.      739 
553,  563,  566,  571,  577, 

586,    590,     593 
Moran   v.    Gardemeyer,   82   Cal. 

96,  23  Pac.  6   776 

V.  L'Etourneau,    118    Mich. 
159,     76     N.     W.     370 

912,     943 
Mordecai  v.  Charleston  Count v, 

8  S.  C.  100  ..249,  251,  500 
V.  Devereux,  74  N.  C.  673  843 
V.  Solomon,      Say      (Eng.) 

172     566 

Morehead  v.  Anderson,  125  Kv. 
77,  100  S.  W.  340,  30  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1137  ..784,  789,  *  878, 
879,   927,  931,  935,   936,   940, 

941,  945,  961,  962,  964 
Morehouse  v.  ]3rooklyn  Heights 
R.  Co.,  185  "N.  Y.  520, 
7  Ann.  Cas.  377,  78  N. 
E.  179,  reversing  102 
App.  Div.  627.  92  N.  Y. 
S.    1134    ....737,    73!t, 

745,     746 

V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 

123  App.  Div.  680,  108 

N.   Y.   S.    152,   affirmed 

195  N.  Y.  537,  88  N.  E. 

1126   729,  738,     791 

V.  Potter,  15  Hid.  477    150 

Morel    V.   New   Orleans,    12   La. 

Ann.  485    796,     956 

Moreland  v.  Dcvennev,  72   Kan. 

471,  83  I\ic."l097.  .670,     760 
V.  Marion  Cnuntv,  1   X.  Y. 
Wkly.  Dig.  326,  17  Fed. 
Cas."  No.  9,794    .  .1101,  1118 
Morov  v.  Schuster,  81  Misc.  515, 

142   N.   Y.   S.    1054 863,   1082 

Morgan.    Re,    8    Ren.     (U.    S.) 
2:'2.    17    Fed.   (as.    No. 

9.798     314 

V.  Booth,    13    r.nsh     (Kv.) 

481     ns,     121 

V.  Brown,   12   La.  .Ann.    1.")!) 

Si);;,     95!) 


are  to  pages.] 

]\lorgan  v.  Giddings   (Te.\.)    1  S. 
W.  369   .  .378,  552,  568, 

571,   578,     59^ 
V.  Joyce,  66  N.  H.  476.  30 

Atl.  1119 561 

V.  Joyce,  66   N.  H.  538,  27 

Atl.    225     Aiil.     531 

V.  Kiser,  105  Ga.  104,  31  S. 

E.  45  777,     778^ 

V.  Minett,  6  Ch.  D.    (Eng.) 

638     289 

V.  Roberts,  38  111.  65  ..243, 
327,  332,  371,  798,  914, 

915.  1005 

V.  Tener,  S3  Pa.  St.  305,  3 

W.  N.  C.  398,  reversing 

10  Phila.  412,   32   Le?. 

Int.  98,  1  W.  N.  C.  283 

522,  .582,  594,     606 
V.  Their   Creditors,    19   La. 

84    409 

Morrell  v.  Miller,  36   Ore.  412, 

59  Pac.  710    1072 

Morrill  v.  Graham,  27  Tex.  646 

291,   5.54,   571,     578 
V.  Iloyt,   83  Tex.   59,   18   S. 
W.    424,    29    Am.    St. 

Rep.  630    778 

V.  Lamson,    138    Mass.    115 

126,  128,     541 
Morris,  Re,  45  Hun  167,  10  N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  50    852 

V.  Cain,    39    La.   Ann.    712, 
1    So.    797,    2    So.    418 

155,  197 
V.  Gricr,  76  N.  C.  410  .  .  489 
V.  Kesterson    (Tex.)    88    S. 

W.    277     782,    889,     955 

V.  La    Societe,    etc.,    Man. 

I'lirep.   Cas.   1    664 

V.  Palmer.  39  N.  H.   123..      905 
V.  Press  Pub.  Co..  98  App. 
Div.  143,  15  N.  Y.  Ann. 
Cas.   343,   90   N.   Y.   S. 

673,  481 
V.  State,  6  Okla.  Crim.  29, 

115  Pac.  1030 213 

^lorrison     v.     Burnett.     50     111. 
App.    129     ..550,    552, 

554.  558,     582 
V.  I'lonrnnv,    23    La.    Ann. 

593    .  ."    954 

V.  Green.  96  Ga.  754.  23  S. 

K.     845     1073,  107f> 

V.  Holt,    42    N.    11.   478,    80 

Am.   Drc.   120    906 

V.   .Mull in.  3  1   I'a.  St.  17    .  .      594 


TAULK    OF    CASKS. 


clxxxi 


[References 

Morrison  v.  Ponder,  45  Cia.  107   1081 
V.  Smith,    130    III.    304,    23 
N.   E.   241    . .273,   285, 

723,     741 
'      V.  Snow,   26   Utah   247,   72 

924 15,     122,     IICD, 

1171,  1198 
V.  Thomas,  92  Tex.  329,  48 
S.    W.    500,    modifving 
46   S.   W.  46    ....'....      300 
V.  Western    Assur.    Co.,    24 

Quebec   Super.   Ct.    Ill      534 
Morrow  v.  Carnes,  108  111.  App. 

621     632 

V.  Parkman,  14  Ala.  769   .  .      328 
Mortimer    v.    Thomas,    23    La. 

Ann.  165    648 

Morton  v.  Crojjlian,  1  Cow.   (N. 

Y.)    233   705 

V.  Forsee,  249  Mo.  409,  155 

S.  W.  765    272,     743 

V.  Hallam,  12  S.  W.  187,  11 

Ky.    L.    Pvep.   447    987 

V.  Nunnellv,         3         Ilayw. 

(Tenn.)    210    562 

V.  Smith    (Tex.)    44    S.    W. 

683     206 

V.  Urquhart,  79  Minn.  390, 

82  N.  W.  653   1055 

V.  Watson,  60  Neb.  672.  84 

N.    W.   91    1273,  1321 

Moseby  v.  Burrow,  52  Tex.  396     149 
Mosely    v.    Jamison,     71     Miss. 
456,  14  So.  529   .  .   755, 

804,    1040,  1046 
V.  Norman,  74  Ala.  422    .  .    1053 
Moser    v.    Cochrane,    107    N.    Y. 

35,   13   N.   E.  442    340 

V.  Long,  64  Ind.  189.  .1096,  1097 
Moses    V.    Baglev,    55    Ga.    283 

653",  728,  733,  767,     832 
V.  McDivitt,    88    N.    Y.    62 

682,     683 
V.  Ocoee      Bank,      1       Lea 

(Tenn.)    398.. 782,  842,  1023 
Mosgrove  v.  Golden,  101  Pa.  St. 

605     959 

Mosher,  Re,  24  Okla.  61,  20 
Ann.  Cas.  209,  102  Pac.  705, 
24   L.R.A.(N.S.)    530    ..1169, 

1171.  1250 
Moshier   v.   Frost,    1]0   111.   20B     875 
V.  Kitchell.  87  111.  18.  .830,     832 
Mosnat  v.  Snyder,   105   la.  500, 

75   N.    W.    356    137 


are  to  pages.] 

Mosness,    Re,    39    Wis.    509,    20 
Am.   Rep.   55    .  .24,  31, 

34,  39,  40,  85,       88 
Moss  V.  Richie,  50  Mo.  App.  75     734 
V.  Strickland,   138  Ga.  539, 

75   S.  E.  022    1071 

Mosteller  v.   Ilolborn,   21   S.   D. 
547,     ]]4    N.    W.    693 

1004,   1055 
Mostvn  V.  Mostvn,  L.  R.  5  Cli. 
457,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  780,  22  L.  T. 

N.  S.  461,  18  W.  R.  657 709 

Motes   V.  Bates,  80  Ala.  382    .  .      643 
Motion    Picture    Patents    Co.   v. 
Yankee    Film    Co.,    192     Fed. 

134    538 

Mott   V.    Bernard,   97    Mo.   App. 

265,   70   S.   W.    1093 .  .      329 

V.  De  Reyes,  45  Cal.  379..      487 

V.  Foster,  45  Cal.  72   ..455,     45G 

V.  Harrington,  12  Vt.  199.  .      748 

Moulton    V.    Bennett,    18    Wend. 

(N.  Y.)   586   ..527,  528     965 
V.  Bowker,    115    Mass.    36, 
15  Am.  Rep.  72    .  .352, 
388,  389,  412,  455,  456,     463 
V.  Hubbard,    6    Johns.     (N. 

Y.)    332    113 

Lloultrie    Lumber    Co.    v.    Jen- 
kins,  121    Ga.    721,   49    S.   E. 

678     131 

Mt.   Sterling   Coal   Road   Co.   v. 

Cox,   2    Kv.   L.   Rep.   60    1032 

Mt.  Vernon  v.  Patton,  94  111.  65     792 
Mourain    v.    Beauvais,     10    La. 

477 362 

Mousseau  v.  Bate,  27  L.  C.  Jur. 

]53,  3   Cartw.   Cas.   34]    1133 

Moutray  v.  People,  1C2  111.  194, 

44  N.  E.  496    1168,  1174,  1290 

Mowat    V.    Brown,    19    Fed.    87 

869,     870 
Mowell  V.  Van   Buren,   77   Hun 

569,  28  N.  Y.  S.  1035    193 

Mower  v.   Watson,    11   Vt.   536, 

34    Am.    Dec.    704 119 

Mowery  v.  Webb,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

360     '. 599 

Mowry  v.  Chase,  100   Mass.   79     336 
Move  "v.   Cogdell,   69   N.   C.   93, 

375,  385,  392,     393 
Mover    v.    Cantieny,    41    Minn. 
242,  42  N.  W.  1060.  .728,  753, 

772,    793,    794,    872,     956 
Moyers  v.  Fogartv,  140  la.  701, 

119  N.  W.  159    175 


clxxxii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Moyers     v.     Graham,     15     Lea 
(Tenn.)    57    ..25,    23G, 

237,  795,  7'JS,     911 
Movie  V.  Landers,  78  Cal.  99.  20 

Pac.  241,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  22     244 
Movnalian  v.   Perkins,   36   Colo. 
481,    10    Ann.    Cas.    1061,    85 

Pac.   1132    348 

Mueller    v.    Batclieler,    131    la. 

650,  109  N.  W.  186   180.     185 

Muir  V.  Guinane,  9  Ont.  L.  Rep. 

324     468 

V.  Orear,  87  Mo.  App.  38.  .      412 
Mulcaliev  v.  Strauss,  151  111.  70, 

37  X.'E.  702    772 

Mulcahv  V.  Devlin,  2  N.  Y.  City 

Ct.  218    528 

Mulford  V.  Hodges,  10  Hun   (N. 

Y.)    79    727.  1006 

V.  Muller,  3  Abb.  App.  Dec. 

330     216 
Mullan  V.  Clark,  4  Idaho  186,  38 

Pac.    247     780 

V.  U.   S.,   118  U.  S.   271,   6 
S.   Ct.    1041,   30   U.   S. 

(L.  ed.)    170    1136 

Mullen  V.  Amas,  7  La.  Ann.  71 

678,     680 
Muller   V.   Kellv,   125   Fed.   212, 
60    C."  C.    A.    170,    re- 
versing   116    Fed.    545 

740,  742,  745,     961 
V.  New  York,  23  Civ.  Proc. 

261,  29   N.   Y.   S.   1096  lOOG 
Mulligan    v.    Cannon,    25    Civ. 
Proc.  348,  41  N.  Y.   S. 
279.  affirmed  153  N.  Y. 
663,     48     N.     E.     1105 

462.     464 
V.  Smith,   32   Colo.   404,   76 
Pac.    1003     ..752,    880, 

881.  88fS.  943.     963 
Mullin,     Ui\    110    Cal.    252,    42 

Pac.   f;45    212 

V.  Douglitv,    69    N.    J.    Fq. 

649,    f.l    Atl.   265    847 

Mullov  V.  Mullov,  231    111.  285, 

83   is*.  F.   158   '. 848 

Multnomah  l,unil)er  Co.  v. 
WcHlcrn  I'askct  Co.,  54  Ore. 
22.  99  Pac.  1046,  reliearing 
denied,   54   Ore.   28,   102    Pac. 

1    466 

Rfuniford  v.  Murray,  H()[)k.   (N. 

Y.)     369     259.     262 

Muirma,  Re,  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 
am   148 


are  to  pages.] 

Murama's    Appeal,    127    Pa.    St. 
474,    18   Atl.   (i,   24    \V.    N.   C. 

297    729,    740,    741,   784,     791 

Mundine  v.  Pitts,  14  Ala.  84    .  .      269 
Mundy  v.  Schantz,  52  N.  J.  ]m|.      * 

744,    30    Atl.    322     (iO.S,     612 

Municipality    No.    2    v.    Orleans 
Cotton   Press.   18  La.   122,  36 

Am.  Dec.  624   480 

Munley    v.    Sugar    Notch    Bor- 
ough,   215    Pa.    St.    228,    64 

Atl.    377     417,     455 

Munnikuvson  v.  Dorsett,  2  Har. 

&   G.    (Md.)    374    ..416,   443,     518 
Munson  v.  Washband,  31  Conn. 

303,  83  Am.  Dec.  151    718 

Munster  v.  Lamb,   11   Q.   B.   D. 

(Fng.)    588    123 

Munter  v.  Linn,  61  Ala.  492   .  .      774 
Murmutt  v.  State   (Tex.)   63   S. 

W.    634    342 

Murpliey  v.  Gates,  81  Wis.  370, 

51    N.    W.    573     898,     899 

V.  Shepardson,  60  Wis.  412. 

19    N.    W.    356     ..947,     948 
V.  Sloan,    24    Miss.    659    .  .      299 
Murphv,    Re,    28    Misc.    650,    59 

N.   Y.   S.    1078    290 

v.  Banderet,    13    Daly     (N. 

Y.)   385    948 

V.  Bvrd,    Hempst.    211,    17 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,947a.  .  430 
v,  Eidlitz,     121    App.    Div. 

224,  105  N.  Y.  S.  674.  .  647 
V.  Justices,  11  Ga.  331  ..  608 
V,  Larson,  77  111.  172.  .648, 

649,     651 
v.  Sumners,    54   Tex.    Crim. 

309,  112  S.  W.  1070   .  .    1115 
V.  Waterhousc,      113      Cal. 
467,    45    Pac.    866,    54 
Am.  St.  Rep.  365.  .158, 

183.     186 
V.  Winter,    IS    Ga.    690     .  .      460 
Murray,  Re,  58  llun  604  mem., 

1  I  N.  Y.  S.  336.  .1196,  1198 
Re,  13  Pa.  Co.  (^t.  70  .  .15,  737 
V.  Barlee,     3     Myl.     &     K. 

(Fng.)    209  ' 719 

V.  Chamberlaiu,     67     Minn. 

12,  69  X.  W.  474  .  774 
V.  Conlon,     19     Mont.     389, 

48    I'ac.    743     847 

V.  De    .Jarnett,    15    Kv.    L. 

Rep.  879    '. 528 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxiii 


[References 

Murray    v.    Dowliny,    1    Crunch 
(C.    C.)     151.    17    Fed. 

Cas.    N().    'J,l).")!t    154 

V.  Ellis,  112   Pa.  St.  485,  ,3 

Atl.    845    .'540 

V.  House,     11     -Johns.      (N. 

Y.)    404   411 

V.  Jibson,  22   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

38(3     10(i4,   10G5 

V.  Li/.otte,    31     It.     1.    509, 
77  Atl.  231   .  .308,  464, 

611,     614,     1235.   1245 
V.  Movnahan,      27       Wasii. 

37!»,   67    Pac.   810    124 

V.  Peckam,  15  R.  I.  297,  3 

Atl.    602    355 

V.  Royal   Ins.   Co.,    1    West. 
L.     Rep.      (Vancouver) 

8    700 

V.  Svvanson,    18   Mont.   535, 

40    Pac.    441     854 

V.  Sweasv,  69  App.  Div.  45, 

74    N.   Y.    S.    543    347 

V.  Trumbull,  62  Wash.  330, 

113   Pac.   709    700,     769 

V.  Waring     Hat     ^Ifg.     Co., 
142  App.  Div.  514,  127 

jS.   Y.    S.    78    734 

Murray's  Estate.  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

681  " 755 

Murrey  v.  State,  48  Tex.  Crim. 

219.   87   S.   W.   349    1112 

Muscatine   First   Nat.    Bank   v. 

Krance,   50   la.  235    777 

Muscott  V.  Stubbs.  24  Kan.  520 

896,  897,     903 
Musgrave's    Case,    210    Pa.    St. 

598,    603.   66    Atl.    84    60 

Musick  V.  Dodson,   70  :Mo.   624, 

43   Am.  Rep.  780    900 

Musselman   v.    Barker,    20    Xeb. 

737,  42  N.  W.  759,  .  .312,  318,     319 
Musser  v.  Adler,  80  Mo.  445,..      902 

V.  Crum,  48  la.   52    880 

Mutual  Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc.  Case, 

19   Pa.  Co.  Ct.  504    267 

Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Corey.  54 

Hun    493,    7    X.    Y.    S. 

939,  affirmed  135  X.  Y. 

320.  31    X.   E.   10:)5    .  .      181 

V.  Pinner,  43   X.  .1.  Eq.  52, 

10  Atl.  184   .  .352,  417,     432 
V.  Selbv,    72    Fed.    890,    44 
U."  S.   A])p.  282,    19   C. 
C.   A.  331    188 


are  to  pages.] 

.Mutual    Milk   &    Cream    Co.    v. 
Tietjen,  73  App.  Div.  532,  77 

X.   V.   S.  287    031 

Myers  v.  Bachrach,  110  X.  Y.  S. 

872  884,  910 

V.  Bench'r,  40  Mont.  497, 

129  I'ac.  330  731, 

902,  903 
V.  Brick,  146  App.  Div. 

197,  130  N.  Y.  S.  910  185 
V.  Crockett,  14  Tex.  257 

792,  793 
V.  Hodges.  53  Fla.  197,  44 
So.  357..  11 8,  120,  122, 

123,  533,  534 
V.  Kenyon,  7  Cal.  App.  112, 

93'  Pac.  888  199 

V.  Luzerne   County,   124 

Fed.  436  273,  277 

V.  McHugh,  16  la.  335 980 

V.  Prefontaine,      40      App. 
Div.   603.   58   X.  Y.   S. 

70     445 

V.  Radford,   167   ]\Iich.   135, 

132  X.  W.  5.50 921 

Mygatt  V.  Tarbell,  85  Wis.  457. 

55  X.  W.  1031 385,     408 

V.  W'ilcox,  45  X.  Y.  300,  6 
Am.  Rep.  90,  adirniing 

1    Lans.   or^    957.     903 

V.  Willcox,  1  Lans.  (X.  Y.) 

55     802,     903 

ily   Laundry   Co.  v.   Schmelinu. 
"129  Wis. '597,  109  X.  W.  540     852 

N 

Nabb  V.  U.  S.  1  Ct.  CI.   (U.  S.) 

173    713 

X'egel  V.  Schilling.  14  Mo.  App. 

576   718 

XVelee   v.   Ingersoll,  7    Pa.    St. 

185 357.     490 

Xairne  v.  Xairne,  86  L.  T.  X.  S. 

(Eng.)   649    908 

Xaltner  v.  Dolan.  108  Ind.  500.  8 
X.  E.  289.  58  Am.  Rep.  61   .  . 

^^^2.  573,     574 
Nance  v.  Cash.  143  Kv.  358.  Ann. 
Cas.  1912D,'422.  136  S. 

W.   619    632.  634,     643 

V.  People   25   Colo.   2,52.   54 
Pac.   031.  .  .1151.    1152, 

1155.  1156 
Xanerede    v.   Voorhis.    32    X".   J. 

Eq.  524 582 


clxxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Naphtrtly,  14  Cent.  L.  J.    (Cal.) 

91)    1266 

Xapton  V.  Leaton,  71  Mo.  358 446 

Xarraguagus  Land  Proprietors 
V.  Wentworth,  36  Me.  339    .  . 

.  .      .      355.  356.     375 
Xarramorc    v.    Clark.    63    N.    II. 

166   529 

Nash  V.  (iilkeson,  5  Serg.  &  R. 

(Pa.)    352    427,     468 

V.  Kneeland,  41  Hun  646 
mem.,  4  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
]^35  954 

Nathan  v.  Brand,  167  111.  607,  47 
N.  E.  771  afhrming  67 
III.  App.  540   ....   780, 

790      931 
V.  Halsell,  91  Miss.  785,  45 

So.  856   519,  747, 

764,     767 
V.  Sutphen,   68   Cal.   267,   9 

Pae.   110    470 

National  Bank  of  Commerce  v. 
Bowman,  (Ky.)  100  S.  W.  831 

384.  480,     508 

National    Bank    of    Republic    v. 

Delano,  177   Mass.  362, 

58  X.  E.  1079.  83  Am. 

St.  Rep.  281..  166.  185,     194 

V.  Old  Town  Bank.  112  Fed. 

720,  50  C.  C.  A.  443   .  .      363 
National   Bank   of   VVinterset  v. 
Eyre,  8  Fed.  733,  3  McCrary. 

175   1053 

National  Exliihition  Co.  v. 
Crane.  167  X.  Y.  505,  60  X.  E. 
768,  allirining  54  App.  Div. 
175,  8  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  231,  66 

X.  Y.  S.  361    1070 

National  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eastern 
Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  63  Xob.  698, 
88  X.  W.  863,  afTirmed  65 
Xeb.  483,  91  X.  W.  482  ....  364 
N^ational  Hollow  Brake  Beam 
Co.  V.  P.akewell,  224   Mo.  203, 

123  S.  W.  561   309,  514, 

548,  564,  585.     589 
Xational     llome-IJldg.     &     Loan 
Assoc.   V.   Fifcr,   71    III.    App. 

295 887.     931 

Natiiiiial    L..    etc.,     Ins.     Co.     v. 

Cib.soii,  101  S.  W.  895    632 

N^atiuiKil  I'ark  Hank  v.  Laiialiiiii, 

60  .M(l.  477    510 

Xatiiiiial  l're.-^.s  1  iitcliiucrnc  (  n. 
V.  i'.nioke.  18  Misc.  373.  11  \. 
V.  S.  658    12,     117 


are  to  pages.] 

X^ational    Sav.    Bank    v.    Ward, 
100    U.   S.   195,   25   U.   S.    (L. 

ed.)  621 12,529,  548, 

552,  553,  554,  556,  585,     586 
X^atlee  Draft  Horse  Co.  v.  Mari- 
on Cripe  &  Co.,  142  Ky.  810, 

135  S.  W.  292 ' 224 

X'auer     v.     Thomas,     13     Allen 

Mass.)    572     150,     230 

Xaumer   v.   Gray,   28   App.   Div. 
529,   51   X.   Y.   S.   222, 
rehearing    denied    32 
App.  Div.  627,  53  X.  Y. 

S.    1110     909 

V.  Gray,  41  App.  Div.  3G1, 

58   X.   Y.  S.   476    ....      909 
X'ave  V.  Baird,  12  Ind.  318.  .221 

517,  578,     589 
V.  Salmon,  51  Ind.  159   ...      894 
V.  Tucker,  70  Ind.   15    ...  .      900 
Xavlor   V.    Lane,    50    Super.    Ct. 

(X.  Y.)    97    1056 

Xeal  V.  Franklin  County,  43  111. 

App.    267    .  .  . '. 728 

V.  Patten,  47  Ga.  73 208 

Neblett  v.  Xeblett,  70  Miss.  572, 

12   So.   598    847,   848,  1028 

Necker  v.   Bates,  118   Iowa   545 

92  X.  W.  667   650 

Xedelhofen    v.    Mason,    201    111. 

465,  66  X.  E.  364   772 

Xeedles  v.   Smith,   87   Fed.  316, 
58  U.  S.  App.  276,  32  C.  C.  A. 

226   1036 

Nell  v.  State,  9  Ark.  259,  50  Am. 

Dec.  209 1192 

Xellc   v.   Berryhill,   4   How.   Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    16" 15,     486 

Xeely,  Re.  134  Fed.  667,  12  Am. 

Bankr.  407   628 

Neflf  V.  Barr.  14   S.  &   R.    (Pa.) 

166   250 

V.  Kohler  ^Mfg.  Co.,  90  ]\Io. 

App.   29ir 84,   90, 

1168.  1281 
V.  Smyth,  111  111.  100   ....      434 
Xeighbors    v.    Maulsby,    41    Md. 

478    ".  ...      723,     902 

V.  State,  41  Md.  478 888 

Neil  V.  Staten,  7  lleisk    (Tenn.) 

290    1049 

Xcill,  l!e,  90  X.  Y.  584   38 

V.    McCliing   (\V.  Va.)  76  S. 

K.  878   443.     454 

V.   N'anW'agenen,    54    Suj)i'r 

Ct.  (N.  Y.)  477  .  .  1003,  1065 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


clxxxv 


[rji'forenct'S 

Noilsnn    v.    Wobcr,     107     Tcnn. 

161.  64  S.  W.  20    270 

Neiniitz  v.  Conrad,  22  Ore.  164, 

29  Pac.  548 532 

Neindorf   v.   Vande  Voordc,  143 

la.  318,  120  N.  W.  84   342 

Nokarda,  Re,  114  App.  Div.  370, 
100  N.  Y.  R.  42,  affirmod  188 
N.  Y.  590,  81  N.  E.  1170.  .  .  .    1307 
Nellis,  Re,  116  App.  Div.  94,  101 

N.    Y.    S.    698    610,     611 

Nels  V.  State,  2  Tex.  280 342 

Nelson,  Re,  32  Cal.  182,  64  Pac. 

294   211 

V.  Becker,  32  Neb.  99.  48  N. 

W.  962    ....    155,  184,     196 
V.  Blaisdell,  23  Ore.  507,  32 

Pac.   391    964 

V.  Bridport,  8  Beav.  (Eng.) 

527,  10  .liir.  871  ..  338.  339 
V.  Com.,  128  Ky.  779,  109 
S.  W.  337,  16  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  272,  33  Kv.  L. 
Rep.  143  .  .  1168,  1170, 

1265.  1268,  1269,  1276 

V.  Cook.  19  HI.  440  507 

V.  Evans.   21   Utah   202,   60 

Pac.  557    671 

V.  International  Harvester 
Co.,  117  :Minn.  298,  135 

N.  W.  808    633, 

638,  639.  642,  645,     646 
V.  Jenk.'?,   51   Minn.   108,  52 

N.  W.  1081 419,     505 

V.  Nelson,  111  Minn.  183, 
126  N.  W.  731,  137  Am. 
St.  Rep.  549.  31  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    523    353 

V.  Omaley,  6  Greenl.    (Me.) 

218  ■. 469 

Bennett  Co.  v.  Twin  Falls 
Land,  etc.,  Co..  14  Idaho 

5,   93   Pac.   789    854 

Nelthorpe  v.  Pennvinan,  14  Yes. 

Jr.    (Eng.)    517* 296 

Neosha    County    v.    Leahy,    24 

Kan.  60    .  .  .  ' " 416 

Nephew  v.  ^lichigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  128  Mich.  599.  87  N.  \Y. 
753.    8    Detroit    Leg.    X.    784 

353,     405 
Neshit  v.  Cautrell.  29  (!a.  255  .  .      736 
v.  Lockman,  34  X.  Y.  167.. 

274.  277.     288 
V.  People,   10   Colo.  441,   3U 

Pac.  221 1097 


are  to  pages.] 

Xesbit    V.    Wlialey,    10    Ky.    L. 
Rep.  400    I  abstract)    .  . 

770,     924 
Xesinith    v.    Drnm,    8    Watts    & 

S.  (I'a.)   9,  42  Am.  Dec.  260.  .      530 
Xettleton    v.    Beach,    107    Mass. 
499  528 

N'eufeld,  Re,  50   Misc.   215,   100 

N.  Y.  S.  444 384 

X^eufeld  v.  Bodeminski,  144  HI. 

83.  32  X.   E.  913    638 

Neville,   Re,   71   App.   Div.   102, 

75  N.  Y.  S.  588   614 

Nevin    v.    Masonic    Sav.    Bank's 
Assignee,  52  S.  W.  811,  21  Ky. 

L.  Rep.  596 899,     950 

New  V.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
113  App.  Div.  446,  99  N.  Y.  S. 

290  808,     812 

New  Athens  v.  Thomas,  82  111. 

259   901 

Newbaker   v.    Alricks,    5    Watts 

(Pa.)  183 246,  888,  1018,  1028 

Xewberg   v.    Schwab,    49    Super. 

Ct.  (X.  Y.)  232  ....  286,  741,  1086 
Newberne  v.  Jones.  63  X.  C.  606  232 
Xewberrv  v.  Blatchford,  106  111. 

"584   1154 

V.  Lee,  3  Hill  (N.  Y.)  525  .  . 

523,     526 
Newbert  v.  Ciinningliam.  50  Me. 
231.  79  Am.  Dec.  612    .  .    987, 

991,  996.  1036.  1048,  1050,  1086 
Newburger  v.  Campbell.  58  How. 
Pr.  (X.  Y.)  313,  9  Dalv  102.  .      110 
Newbv,  Re,  76  Xeb.  482,  107 

N.  W.  850 1168, 

1176,  1186,  1273 
Re,  82  Xeb.  235,  117  X.  W. 

691  1309 

Newcastle   v.  Bellard,  3  Greenl. 

(Me.)    369    574,     597 

Xewcomb  v.  Brooks,  16  W.  \'a. 

32 297,  298.     304 

V.  Dewev.  27  la.  381  .  .  440,     443 
V.  Peck,  17  Vt.  302.  44  Am. 

Dec.  340 445 

X'^ewel  v.   Xeidv.  61   la.   300.   16 

X.   W!   141    750 

Newell.  Re,  157   App.   Div.  907, 

142  X.  Y.  S.  185 1301 

V.  West,  149  Mass.  520.  21 

X.  E.  954   .  .  981.  1017,  1038 
Newen,    Re,    [1903]    1    Ch.    812 

[1903]  W.  X.  52 402,     403 

Xew  Hampshire  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Xoyes,  32  X.  H.  345    719 


clxxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Xewhart     v.    Wolfe,    2    Penny. 

(Pa.)  295 '■  ■      435 

Xewliouse   v.   Godwin,   17   Barb. 

(N.  Y.)  236 290 

Xewkirk  v.  Cone,  18  111.  449    .  . 

659,  662,  665.  666.  667,     728 
V.  Stevens,   152   N.   C.    498, 
67   S.  E.   1013    .  .    250, 

252,     276 
Newlin  v.  Armstrong,  8  W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)    255    878 

V.  Carbon  Steel  Co.,  110  N. 

Y.  S.  921 889 

Xewman     v.     Bradley,     1     Dall. 
(Pa.)    240,  i  U.  S.    (L. 

ed.)  118 329 

V.  Davenport.        9        Baxt. 

(Tenn.)    538    741, 

746,  747,  748.  750,     782 
V.  Freitas,  129  Cal.  283,  61 
Pac.  907,  50  L.R.A.  .548 

758-759 
V,  KeflFer,    33    Pa.    St.    442 
note.  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

10,177    782 

V.  Keffer,    Briin.    Col.    Cas. 
502,    18   Fed.    Cas.    No. 

10,177    780 

V.  Riser,    128    Ind.    258.    26 
N.  E.  1006  .  .   364.  370, 

375,  379.  380,  500 
V.  Morris,  52  Miss.  402  ...  562 
V.  Pavne,  2  Vcs.  .Jr.   (Eng.) 

199    273 

V.  Schueck,  58  111.  App.  328 

562,     567 
V.  Washington,  Mart.  &  Y. 
(Tenn.)  79   .  .   602,  702, 

863,     869 
New   National   Turnpike    Co.   v. 
Dulanev.  86  Kv.  518.  6  S.  W. 

590,  9  "Kv.  L.   Rep.  697    857 

New  Orleans  v.  Hennen,  18  T.a. 

428    362,     364 

V.  Stcinliardt.   52    La.   Ann. 

1043.  27  So.  586   .  .416,     426 
New  Orleans,  t>te.,  R.  Co.  v.  All- 
britton,    38    Miss.    242, 

75  Am.  Dee.  98    936 

V.  New      Orleans,      34      La. 

Ann.  429   1159 

Now  Orleans  Cas  Co.   v.   Webb, 

7   La.  Ann.  164    678 

Newport  Rolling  IMill  Co.  v. 
Flail,  147  Ky.  598.  144  S.  W. 
760 664,  672,  676,  755,  1044 


are  to  pages.] 

New    Sharon    Creamery    Co.    v. 
Knowlton.  132  la.  672,  108  N. 

W.  770 859 

Newton,  Ex  p.,  4  El.  &  Bl.  869, 

82  E.  C.  L.  869   1133 

Re,   27    Mont.   182.   70   Pac. 
510,  982   .  .    1332,  1334, 

1337,  1338,  1339 
V.  Easterwood.    154    S.    W. 

646   268 

V.  Ilamden,  79  Conn.  237,  64 

Atl.   229    233 

V.  More,  14   Ark.  166    880 

V.  Porter,   5   Lans.    (N.   Y.) 

416    528 

V.  Weaver,  13  R.  I.  616    .  .      633 
Newton  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Wm. 
B.   Grimes   Drv-Goods  Co.,  45 
Kan.   510,  26  "Pac.  56    .  .  .  .  .  .      443 

New   York   v.   Smith,   61   Super. 

Ct.  374,  48  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  586     440 
New  York   Bar  Assoc,  v.  Chap- 
pell,  131  App.  Div.  69.  115  N. 
Y.  S.  868  .  .   1218.  1221,  1222, 

1258.    1260,    1204,  1315 
New     York     Citv     and     County 
Com'rs  V.  Purdy,  36  Barb.  (N. 

Y.)   266    436 

New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  ]\Lartin. 
158  Mass.  313,  33   N.   E.  578 

388,     401 
New  York  Female  Ass'n  v.  Beek- 

man.  21  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  565   .  .    1154 
New  York  Law  School.  Re,  190 

N.  Y.  215,  83  N.  E.  17 

59.  60,       76 
New  York  Mail,  etc.,  Transp.  C-o. 
V.  Shea,  30  App.  Div.  374,  52 
N.  Y.  S.  5.  reversing  23  Misc. 

15,  49  N.  Y.  S.  951    630 

New  York  Phonograpli  Co.  v. 
Edison  Phonograpli  Co..  150 
Fed.  233,  denvinfr  reliearinor 
148  Fed.  397  .'.  254.  262,  797,  806 
Niagara,  etc..  Power  Co..  Re,  203 
N.  Y.  493,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B 
234.   97   N.   E.   33,   38    L.IL\. 

(N.S.)   207   614,  1087 

NiaL'ara  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.   ITart.  13 

Wa.sh.  651,  43  Pac.  937  .  .767,  1053 
Nicholls.  Ex  p.,  7  .Tur.  (Enir.) 
374.  12  L.  .L  (1.  B.  103. 
2  Dowl.  N.  S.  423  ....  613 
V.  WilsdTi.  11  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)  106,  12  L.  J. 
Exch.  266,  2  Dowl.  N.  S. 
1031   244 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


clxxxvii 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Nichols  V.  Daily  Keporter  Co.,  30  Noble  v.  Learv.  ."57  Ind.  186   ...      G07 

Utah '74,    8    Ann.    Cas.  v.  State  'Bank,     3     A.     K. 

841,   83    Pac.   573,   116  Marsh.  (Ky.)  263.. 416,     431 

Am.    St.    Rep.    796,    3  Nodine  v.  Hannum,  1  Alaska  302 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    339    133                                                  617,838,1087 

V.  Dennis.     R.     M.     Charlt.  Noftzger  v.  Moffett,  63  Kan.  354, 

(Ga.)    188    249,     253  65  Pac.  670    934,  935. 

V.  Hampton,  46  Ga.  253 131       941,  986,  1000,  1001.  1023,  1029 

V.  Jones,  32  Mo.  App.  057  Nolan  v.  Jackson,  16  111.  272  .  . 

341,  346,  349          367,  370,  383,  391,  395,  451 

V.  Pool,  89  111.  491  .  .  973,  v.  Rogers,  4  Mart.  N.  S. 

1006,  1031  (La.)  145  394 

V.  Riley,  118  App.  Div.  (N.  v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co..  19 

Y.)  404,  103  N.  Y.  S.  Okla.  51.  91  Pac.  1128 

554  294,  295,  303             11,  15.  34,  81.  432.  475 

V.  Scott.  12  Vt.  47    ..    838,  911               v.  Taylor,  12  La.  Ann.  201     874 

Nickels  v.  Griffin,  1  Wash.  Ter.  Noll  v.  Smith,  68  Ind.  188 851 

374 308,  318      Nolte   v.    Ilulbert,    37    Ohio   St. 

V.  Kane,  82  Va.  309   ..66.5,  445,    affirming    5    Ohio    Dec. 

671,  729,738,  801            (Reprint)   485.  G  Am.  L.  Rec. 

Nickless  v.  Pearson,  81  Ind.  427  247,    7    Ohio    Dec.     (Reprint) 

552.  571,  592           398,  2   Cine.  L.  Bui.  294    ... 

V.  Pearson,  84  Ind.  602   ...  571                                                           302,     36e 

Nicoll   V.   Nicoll,   16   Wend.    (X.  Noonan,    Re,    65    N.   J.   L.    142, 

Y.)     446,    overruling    2    Edw.  46  Atl.  570   1308 

574 985,  1054,  1056               v.  Gray,  1  Bailey  L.  (S.  C.) 

Niday,  Re,  15  Idalio  559,  98  Pac.  437    359,     497 

845  .  .  158.  159.  164.  194.  198,  212       Norberg  v.  Heineman,  59  Mich. 

Nielsen  v.  Albert  Lea,  91  Minn.  210,  26  N.  W.  481  .  .  416,  435,     510' 

388,  98  N.  W.  195  .  .  736.  979,  Nordlinger  v.   DeMicr,   54   Hun 

997,  1040,  1046,  1079  276,  7  N.  Y.  S.  463   445. 

Niemann  v.  Collyer.  71  Hun  612  Norfolk,   etc.,   R.   Co.  v.   Denny, 

mem.,  24  N.  Y.  S.  516  .  .   788,     944  106  Va.  383,  56  S.  E.  321 334 

Ni2:htingale  v.  Oregon   Cent.   R.  Normand,  Re,  88  Neb.  767,  130 

Co.,  2''Sawy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  N.  W.  571    327,     330 

No.   10,264    27,   28.   451,  Norquay  v.  Broggie,  2  West.  L. 

455.457,482,     488  Rep.    (Yukon  Terr.)    108    404 

Niles,   Re,    5    Daly    (N.    Y.)    465,  Norrell  v.  Vogal,  39  Minn.  107, 

48  How.  Pr.   246    ....    1269  38  N.  W.  705   640 

V.  Muzzy,   33   Mich.   61.   20  Norris,  Re,  60  Kan.  649,  57  Pac. 

Am.   Rep.   670    ..    753,  950                       528  ..  1257,1273,1305,  132-4 

Niman,  Re,  14  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  v.  Breakwater  Co.,  235  Pa. 

515    819                        St.  358,  84  Atl.  358   .  .      948 

Nimmons  v.   Stewart,   13    S.   C.  y    Douglass,  5  N.  J.  L.  817     417 

445   841,  842    845.  888               ^_  jjero,  22  La.  Ann.  605   .  .      573 

Ninety-nine    Plamtifis    v     Van-  ^,      j^   ^    j^           ^^^^    ^     ^^ 

derbilt,   4   Duer    (N.   \.)    632  p    „-                ,    v         / 

,,.  ,            ,                .   ^  "  L-      '  North  America,  Atty-Gen.  v.  L. 

^'l^l^  I^^'^'T'^T-Ja    %a    U9      fi07  In«-  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  387   362 

356    510,  .571    574    576.   592.  607      ^^^^,^    ^^'^^.^^^    g^^,^.    ^_ 

Niven's    Prial,    1    Wheel.    Cnm.  atc          tto 

(N.  Y.)   337  note    610       ^  l^*  ^l^-  203,  21  S.  W.  479 .  .      778 

Nixon  V.  Ossenbeck,  129  Ky.  588,  North    Brunswick    Tp.    v.    Boo- 

112   S.  W.   645      1073           raem,  10  N.  J.  L.  257   .  .   426,     427 

V    Phelps,  29   Vt.  198    945       North  Chicago  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Ack- 

Noble  V.  Bellows,  53  Vt.  527.  .  ley,  171  111.  100,  49  N.  E.  222, 

765,   832,     959  44   L.R.A.   177    754,  1031) 


clxxx 


XXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Rc'foreiiccs 

North  Chicago  St.  E.  Co.  v.  Ack- 

ley.  58  IlC  App.  572 1044 

Northern  Cent.  11.  Co.  v.  Eider, 

45  Md.  24   466 

Northern  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Clarke, 

106    Fed.    794.    45    C.    C.    A. 

(535    709,  712,     900 

Northern   Pac.    R.   Land    Grant, 

21   Op.  Atty.-Gen.  486    1140 

Northern  Securities  Co.  v.  U.  S., 

]91   U.  S.  555,  24  S.  Ct.  119, 

48  U.  S.(L.  ed.)   299 150 

Nortli    ]Missouri    R.    Co.    v.    Ste- 
phens,   36    Mo.    150,    88    Am. 

Dec.    138   483 

North  ^^'hitehall   Tp.  v.   Keller, 

100  Pa.  St.  105,  45  Am.  Rep. 

361,   12   W.  N.   C.   177    ..385, 

390,   397,   398,   399,     406 
Northrup      v.      Hayward,      102 

Minn.  307,   12   Ann.  Cas.  341, 

313    N.    \V.    701    .  .    980.    997, 

1010,    1030,    1048,    10G3,   1071.   1072 
Northumherland  v.  Todd,  7   Ch. 

D.    (Eng.)    777    130 

Nortliwestern  S.  S.  Co.  v.  Coch- 
ran, 191  Fed.  140,  111  CCA. 

G2G    664 

Norton  v.  Clark,  253  111.  557,  97 

N.  E.   1079    211 

Norvell  v.  Porter,  62  Mo.  309..      461 

Norwood  V.  Cobb,  24  Tex.  551   .  .      446 

V.  Barcalow,    6     Daly     (N. 

Y.)    117    234 

V.  Dodge.     (Mass.)     102    N. 

E.  412    427 

Nothstein  v.  Carbon  County,  17 

Pa.   Co.   Ct.   206,   5   Pa.   Dist. 

Ct.    ()9    1091 

Nova  Scotia  Bank  v.  Morrow,  17 

N.   Bruns.  343    402 

Novotny,  Re,  (Minn.)  142  N.  W. 

733   1211,  1218 

Noxon    V.    Gregory,   5    How.    Pr. 

(X.    Y.)    339    ." 1054,  1056 

Nuves    V.    Belding,   5    S.    I).    603, 

59    \.    \V.    lOliO    418 

Nugent   V.    JMetrupolitan    St.    R. 

Co.,    146    App.    Div.    775,    131 

N.  Y.  S.  423   1332,   1339 

Nunn,   Re,   73  Minn.  292,  70   .\. 

W.    38    1241 

Xutt   V.   Merrill,    Id    Me.  237    .  . 

357,     455 
.Nutting  V.   Kings  (  ountv  El.  R. 

Co.,   91    II un  251,   36   Is'.   Y.  S. 

142    354 


are  to  pages.] 

N.  \\.  (  onstruction  Co.  v.  Valle, 

16    Manitoba   201    270 


O 


0 ,  Re,  73  Wis.  002,  42  N. 

W.  221  .  .93,  1180,  1212.  1216, 

1219,  1222,  1224,  122(i,  1230 
Oakes  v.  Halifax,  4  Can.  Sup. 

Ct.  640  491 

Oakey  v.  Duncan,  2  Rob.    (La.) 

349    611 

O'Barr  v.  Alexander,  37  Ga.  195 

548,     582 
O'Brien,    Re,    79    Conn.    46,    63 
Atl.  777    .  .    12,  24,  31, 

43,  66,  92 
V.  Lewis,  9  Jur.  N.  S. 
(Eng.)  528,  11  W.  R. 
318,  8  L.  T.  N.  S.  179  289 
V.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
27  App.  Div.  1.  27  Civ. 
Proc.   152,  50  N.  Y.  S. 

159    1077 

V.  Spalding,  102  Ga.  490.  31 
S.  E.  100,  60  Am.  St. 
Rep.    202    ..    158,    189, 

210,  212,     330 
V.  Weiler,  68  Hun  64,  22  N. 

Y.  S.  627   343 

V.  Whitehead,    75    Ga.    751     987 
Ocean  Ins.  Co.  v.  Rider,  22  Pick. 

(Mass.)    210    979,     988 

O'Connell,  Re,  174  Mass.  253,  53 
N.    E.    1001,   54    N.    E. 

558   1230,  126G 

Re,    98     Fed.     83.     3     Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  422 819 

O'Conner  v.  Arnold.  53  Ind.  203     374 
V.  Padget,   82   Neb.   95,   116 

N.  W.  1131    180 

O'Connor    v.    Gemmill,    26    Out. 

App.  27    670 

V.  Ilendrick,  90  App.  Div. 
432,    86   N.   Y.   S.   1    . . 

234,  237,     255 
V.  O'Connor,    62    Misc.    53, 

115   N.  Y.   S.   9(;5    218 

V.  St.     Louis     Transit    C^o., 

198    Mo.    622,     8     Ann. 

Cas.  703,  97  S.  W.  150, 

115    Am.    St.    Rep.    495 

1010,  1011,  1012.  1042,  1080 

Odd      Fellows'     Sav.      Rank     v. 

i'>rander,  124  Cal.  255.  50  Pac. 

1109    419,  420,     479 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


clxxxix 


[Ri'forenci'S 

Ocloll  V.  Miindv.  59  Ga.  041    .Kil 

V.  Kof^ers,"^  44  Wis.  13(5 ;5U3 

Odlin  V.  Stetson,  17  Me.  244.  .35 

Am.  Dec.  248    571.     5»2 

0'l)()iiii,!^lni(>     V.     ^IcGovcri),     2."') 

Wciu'l.   (X.  Y.)   20 123 

O'Domicll  V.  Brcck,  7  Pa.  Super. 

C't.  24    274,     295 

V.  Lindsay,    39    Super.    Ct. 

(N.  Y.)    523 296 

V.  Mcl'Jlrov,    157    ]Mo.    App. 

547,  ]"38  S.  W\  074   ...      344 
O'Donogiuie  v.  'Jitle  Guarantee, 
etc.,    Co.,    79    111.    App.   263 

327,     332 
O'Donolioe    v.     Whittv,    2    Ont. 
424,    amrmed    20    Can.    L.    J. 

146    584 

O'Driscoll  V.  Doyle,  31  Cole  193, 

73  Pac.  27    070,     675 

Oestrich   v.   Gilbert,   9   Hun    (N. 

Y.)   242   532 

Officers  of  Ct.  v.  Hincs,  33  Ga. 

510    540 

Offut  V.  Edwards,  9  Rob.   (La.) 

90    858,     859 

O'Flalierty     v.     Hamburg-Amer- 
ican Packet  Co.,  108  Fed.  411  1084 
O'Flynn   v.   Eagle,   7   Mich.   306 

416,  422,  431,  432,     435 
Ogden  V.  Devlin,  45  Super.   Ct. 

631    237,  254,     262 

V.  Hughes,  5  N.  J.  L.  718.  .      115 
Ogden  City  v.  Boreman,  20  Utah 

98,  57  Pac.  843   102 

O'Grady,  Re,  4  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.) 

199    1250 

O'Halloran   v.   Marshall.   8   Ind. 

App.  394,  35  N.  E.  920   .  .517,     945 
O'Hanlon  v.  Murray,  12  Jr.  C.  L. 

161    556 

O'Hara,  Re,  166  Fed.  384,  21 
Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  508 .  . 

810,  825 
V.  Brophy,  24  How.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  379  518,  586 

Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hardy.  64 

Ind.  454 125,"  128,  129 

V.  Lew.  134  Ind.  343,  32 

X.  E.  815,  34  N.  E.  20  343 
V.  Smith,  5  Ind.  App.  30,  31 

X.  E.  371  708,  871 

Ohlquest    v.    Farwell,    71     Towa 

231,  32  X.  W.  277    483,     494 

Oishei  V.  La/.zarone,  01  Hun  623 

mem.,  15  N.  \^  S.  933  .  .  681,     758 


are  to  pagrs.l 

Oisliei  V.  ]\I(!tropolilan  St.  R. 
Co.,  110  App.  Div.  709, 
35    Civ.    Proc.    240,    97 

X.  Y.  S.  447    1062,  1082 

V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  117 
App.  Div.  110,  119,  102 
N.  Y.  S.  368,  374, 
affirmed  191  X.  Y.  544, 
85   X.   E.   1113    ..1043, 

1060,  1069,  1085 
O'Kcefe  v.  Rice,  Bailey  Eq.    (S. 

C.)    179    562 

Old  Colony  Realty  Co.  v.  Aitken, 
123  App.  Div.  404,  107  X.  Y. 

S.   1063    1053 

Oldham  v.  Hand,  2  Ves.   (Eng.) 

259    289 

v.  Sparks,  28  Tex.  425 570 

Oldmixon  v.  Severance,  119  App. 

Div.  821,  104  X.  Y.  S.  1042  681 
Olds  v.  Tucker,  35  Ohio  St.  581  843 
Oligschlagcr    v.    Stephenson,    24 

Okla.   760,   104  Pac.  345    853 

Oliveira  v.  Silva,  IS  Hawaii  002     415 
Oliver  v.  Bennett,  65  X.  Y.  559     477 
V.  Cameron,    iSIacArthur    & 
M.   (D.  C.)   237    ..    156, 

161,  102,  187.  192,     197 
V.  Lansing,  57  X"eb.  352,  77 

X.  W.  802   848 

v.  McDowell,   100   111.  App. 

45    154 

V.  Pate,  43  Ind.  132    ..181, 

182,     331 
v.  Sheeley,    11    Xeb.    521,    9 

X.  W,  689   1079 

V.  South  Carolina  Inter- 
state, etc..  Exposition 
Co.,  68  S.  C.  508,  47  S. 

E.  988    843 

V.  Warren,     16     Cal.     App. 

164,  116  Pac.  312    171 

Oliwill  v.  Verdenhalven,  17  Civ. 
Proc.  302,  20   X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

115,   7   X.   Y.  S.   99    988 

1075,  1077.  1082,  1085 
Olmstead,  Re,  11  X.  D.  306,  91 

X.  W.  943  1250 

V.  Firth,    60   Minn.   126,   61 

X.  W.  1017    433,     435 

V.  Partridge,         16        Gray 

(Mass.)    381   650     651 

V.  Webb,    5    App.    Cas.    ( D. 

C.)    38   210,     221 

Olsen  V.  California  Ins.  Co.  11 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  371,  32 
S.  W.  446   149 


cxc 


TADLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Olsen  V.  Sargent  County,  15  N. 

D.  146,  107  N.  W.  43..    1040 
V.  Gjertsen,   42    Minn.    407, 

44  N.  W.  306 954 

V.  Lamb,  56  Neb.  104,  76  N. 

W.    433,    71     Am.    St. 

Rep.    670    .  .    272,   290, 

297,  301,  303,  305,  948,     949 

Oltrogge  V.  Schutte,  51  la.  279, 

1   X.   W.  544    233 

Olvphant  v.  Phyfe,  48  App.  Div. 

1,   62   N.   Y.   S.   688,   affirmed 

166  X.  Y.  630,  60  N.  E.  1117     270 

Omaha,  etc..  R.  Co.  v.  Brady,  39 

Neb.  27,  57  N.  W.  767   .'.653, 

654,  670,     730 
O'Neal  V.  Hart,  116  Cal.  69,  47 

Pac.   926    776 

V.  McKinna,   116   Ala.   606, 

22  So.  905    637,     648 

V.  Spaiilding,  66  S.  W.   11, 

23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1729   .  . 

237,   241,     502 
O'Neill,     Re,     90     N.     Y.     584,. 
affirming    27    Hun    599 

36,       37 
V.  Crane,  65  App.  Div.  358, 

72  N.  Y.  S.  812  .  .   701,     791 
V.  Douthitt,    39    Kan.    316, 

18     Pac.     199     410 

V.  Murry,    6    Dak.    107,    50 

N.  W.  619    157,     179 

Onstott  V.  Edel,  232  111.  201,  13 
Ann.    Cas.   28,    83   N.    E.   806 

331-332,     333 
Opening  of  Lexington  Ave.,  Re, 
30  App.  Div.  602,  52  N.  Y.  S. 
203,  affirmed  157  N.  Y.  678,  51 

N.  E.   1092    993 

Opinion  of  Justices,  Re,  3  Gray 

(Mass.)   001    '.    1096 

Opinions  of  Justices,  115  Mass. 

602    47 

Oppenlieim,    Re,    155    App.   Div. 

8S9.   139  N.  Y.  S.  1053    1333 

Op[)cnlii'iMier,   Re,   146    Fed.    140, 

17  Am.  Rankr.  Rep.  59 820 

Orciitt    V.    Pettit,    4    Dcnio    (N. 

Y. )    233    682 

O'Rcilrv   V.  Call,  7   Ky.  L.  Rep. 

51(1    383.   391.     395 

O'lirillv,  IJr.  1    ('.  C.  ().  15.  3!)2,  2 

Onl.   I'r.    1!)S    1221 

Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hayes,  61  Neb. 

173,  85  N.  VV.  57 305 


Orman    v.    State,    22    Tex.    App. 
604,  3  S.  \V.  4()8,  58  Am.  Rep. 

602    162,     213 

Ormerod    v.    Dearman,    100    Pa. 
St.   561,  45  Am.   Rep.   391    .  . 

753,     754 
O'Rourke  v.  Cleveland,  49  N.  J. 
Eq.  577,  25  Atl.  367,  31  Am. 

St.   Rep.   719    852 

Orphans'  Ct.  v.  Woodburn,  7  W. 

&  S.    (Pa.)    162   329 

Orr  V.  Brown,  09  Fed.  216,  30  U. 
S.  App.  405,  16  C.  C.  A. 

197    233,  707,     723 

V.  Brown,  74  Fed.  1004,  41 
U.  S.  App.  486,  21  C.  C. 

A.  195  892 

V.  Sparkman,  120  Ala.  9,  23 

So.  829  777 

V.  Tanner,  12  R.  I.  94  .  . 

318,  949 
V.  Tribble,  158  Fed.  897.  19 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  849  .  .   030 
Orton,  Re.  54  Wis.  379,  11  N. 

W.  584  ..  1286,  1288,  1324 

V.  State,  12  Wis.  509  1156 

Orwig,  Re,  31  Leg.  Int.  (Pa.)  20 

1210,  1264,  1298 
Re,  1  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  148  1311 
Osborn  v.  Herron,  28  Ga.  313.  .   330 
V.  Hopkins,  160  Cal.  501, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913A  413, 

117  Pac.  519  871  958 

V.  Storms,  65  Ind.  321   368 

V.  U.  S.  Bank,  9  Wheat  738, 
6  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)   204.  . 

414,  415,  419,  422,     432 
Osborne  v.  Dunham,   (N.  J.)    16 

Atl.  231 987 

v.  Eslinger,    155    Ind.    351, 
58   N.    E.   439,    80   Am. 

St.   Rep.   240    848 

V.  Waters,  92  Ark.  3S8,  123 

S.   W.   374    1081 

Osliiel  V.  De  Graw,  6  Cow.    (N. 

Y.)    63   471 

Osier,  Re,  Manitoba  t.  Wood  205     ()13 
Ostnian  v.  ]?ruere,  141  Mo.  Apji. 

240,  124  S.  W.  1059 1113 

Ostrander     v.     Capitol     Invest., 
etc..  As.soe.,  130  Mich.  312.  89 

N.   W.  9(14    :!()!),   325,   831, 

836,     875 
O'Sullivan,    Re.    122     App.     Div. 

527,  107  N.  Y.  S.  462.  .    IZOd 


TABLE    OV    CASES. 


CXCl 


[Reft'rences 

O'Snllivan  v.  Metropolitan  8t. 
R.  Co..  39  Misc.  2(i!),  7!) 
N.  Y.  S.  481  .  .-237.  2.-)4 

'202,  1051 
Oswalt  V.  Moore,  19  Ark.  257..  719 
Ott  V.   Hood.    152    Wis.   97,   1.'59 

N.  W.  702 272,  570,     575 

Ottawa  Univorsitv  v.  Parkinson, 
14   Kan.'  159.  .787-789, 

932,  930,  938,     941 

V.  Welsh,  14  Kan.  104 932 

Ottawav  V.  Hamilton,  3  C.  P.  D. 

(Eng.)   393   908 

Ottofy  V.  Keves,    91    Mo.    App. 

140  ' 917 

V.  Winsor,     137     Mo.     App. 

272,  119  S.  W.  40.  .887,     901 
Ould  V.  Richmond.  23  Gratt.  Va. 

404,  14  Am.  Rep.  139.. 97,  98,     101 
Ousterhout  v.  Day,  9  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)    114    545 

Owen  V.  Barrow,  1  B.  &  P.  N.  R. 

(Eng.)    101    364 

V.  Cawley,  30  N.  Y.  000.  .  .      348 
V.  Dudley,   217   l^.    S.    488, 

30  S.  Ct.  002,  54  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    851,  aHirming 

31  App.    Cas.    (D.    C.) 

177     704,     830 

V.  Griffin,   2  Hun   670    719 

V.  Mason,   18  How.  Pr.    (X. 

Y.)     156    1030,  1049 

V.  National      Hatcliet      Co., 
147  la.  393,  121  X.  W. 
1076,  126  N.  W.  333.  .      338 
V.  Ord,  3  C.  &  P.  349,  14  E. 

C.  L.  342   421 

V.  Smith,    (la.)    130  N.  W. 

119    251 

Owens  V.  Gunther,  75  Ark.  37, 
5  Ann.   Cas.  130,  80  S. 

W.  851   72! 

V.  Ranstead,  22  HI.  101 501 

Owers  V.  Olathe  Silver  Min.  Co., 
6  Colo.  App.  1,  39  Pac.  980.  . 

293.  294.     296 
Oxford     Union      Congregational 
Soc.    V.    West    Congregational 
See.,  55  N.  H.  463 1154 


Pach    V.    Oenffrav.    05    Hun    618 

mem.,  19  N.  Y.  S.  583 461 

Pacific  :\!fL'.  Co.  V.  Brown.  8 
Wash.  347,  30  Pac.  273  .  .269,     270 


are  to  pages.] 

Pacific    Paving   Co.    v.   Vizelich, 
141  Cal.  4,  74  Pac.  352 

415,     422 
V.  Vizelich,  2  Cal.  App.  515, 

83    Pac.  459 379 

Pacific  R.  Co.  V.  Ketcham,   101 
U.   S.  289,  25   U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

932 296,  302,  492,     496 

Pack  V.  Crawford,  29  Ark.  489.  .      300 
Packard  v.  Delfel.  9  Wash.  502, 

38   Pac.   208 234 

V.  Stephani,    85     Hun     197, 

32  N.  \^  S.  1010  ..462,     464 
Paddock  v.  Colby,  18  Vt.  485.. 

710.  711,     900 
v.  Kittredge,  31  Vt.  378.  .  .      894 
V.  Watts,   116   Ind.   147,   18 
N.    E.    518,    9  Am.  St. 

Rep.   832    639 

Padgett  V.  Smith,  206  Mo.  303, 

103  S.  W.  943 849 

Page,  Re,  1  Bing.  160,  8  E.  C.  L. 
451,  7  Moo.  C.  PI.  572,   1  L. 

J.  C.  PI.  45 1250 

V.  Brewster,  54  N.  H.  184 .  .      487 
V.  Rogers.  149  Fed.  194.  79 
C.   C.   A.    153,   17    Am. 
Bankr.  Rep.  854   ..819.     820 
V.  Sluhbs,  39  la.  537  .  .  298, 

305.     306 
V.  Superior  Court,  122  Cal. 

209,  54  Pac.  730 470 

V.  Trutch.    3    N.    Y.    Wkly. 

Dig.   167    .' .      233 

V.  Trutch,    5    Am.    L.    Rec. 
155,    18   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

10.068    556.  559     767 

Painter    v.    (iibson,    88    la.    120. 

125.  55  N.  W.  84 355,     498 

Palake    v.    Paakaula,   6    Hawaii 

269 537 

Palen  v.   Starr,   7  Hun    (N.   Y^) 

422   444,     450 

Pallace  v.  Niagara,  etc.,   Power 
Co..  131  App.  Div.  453.  115  N. 

Y.  S.  340 595,  596,  948,     951 

Palliser  v.  Home  Telephone  Co.. 

170  Ala.  341.  54  So.  499    479 

Palmer.  Re.  6  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  179, 

9  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  55   1334 

Re,  8  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  508,  15 

Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  94 

1173,   1334,  1335 
V.  Ashley,  3  Ark.  75  .  .  572, 

584.  592.     598 
V.  Broder.  78  Wis.   483.   47 

N.   W.   744    641 


CXCll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Palmer  v.   Hudson   Kiver   State 
Hospital,  10  Kan.  App. 

98,   6]    Pac.   506    334 

V.  Miller.  19  Ind.  App.  624, 
49  X.  E.  975.  25  Ind. 
App.  357.  58  N.  E.  213, 
81  Am.  St.  Rep.  107   .  . 

375,  379,     462 
V.  Nolting,  13  Ind.  App.  581, 

41  N.  E.  1045 856 

V.  Palmer,  24  Misc.  217,  53 

N.  Y.   S.  538    1056 

V.  Reitt'cnstein,    1    M.    &    G. 

94,  39  E.  C.  L.  370  ....  244 
V.  Richardson,  70  111.  544  .  .  637 
V.  Thomson,  4  Rich.  L.    (S. 

C.)  607 599 

Palmeter  v.  Carey,  63  Wis.  426. 

21  N.  W.  793,  23  N.  W.  586.  .      775 
Palms  V.  Howard,  129  Kv.  668, 
112   S.  W.   1110    .  .    272.   279, 

281,  283,     949 
Pandjiris   v.   Hartman,   196   Mo. 

539,  94  S.  W.  270   647 

Papincau  v.  White,  117  111.  App. 

51   760 

Paradis  v.  Bosse,  21  Can.   Sup. 

Ct.  419   G99,  724,     869 

Pardee  v.  Salt  Lake  County, 
39  Utah  482,  118  Pac.  122,  36 

L.R.A.(X.S.)  377  714 

Paret  v.  Bavonne,  39  N.  J.  L.  559 

489,     490 
Parish  v.  Gates.  29  Ala.  254  .... 

154. 156, 159, 183,     190 
V.  Hedges,  ;'>4  App.  Cas.   (U. 

C.)  21 269 

Park   V.    Laurens,   68   S.   C.   218, 

46  S.  E.  1012  ....  845.  846 
V.  Regan,  55  Misc.  235,  105 

N.   V.   S.   253    417 

Parker  v.  I'.ligliton,  :i2  Mich.  260 

804.  1040 
V.   Brittoii.     133     Mo.     .\\>\). 

270,  113  S.  W.  259 561 

V.  Carter,  91  Ark.  162,  120 
S.  W.  836,  134  Am.  St. 

lU-p.  60 958 

V.  Carter,  4  .Munf.  (Va.) 
273,  6  Am.  Dec.  513    .  . 

L'iS.  165.  172,     181 
V.   Downing,    13    .Mass.    465 

248,   363,     503 
V.  Esch,    5    Wa.sh.    296,    31 

Pac.   754    882 


Parker  v.  Home  Mut.  Building  & 
Loan    Assoc,    114    (Jla. 

702,  40  S.  K.  724    506 

V.  Hotchkiss,  1  Wall.  Jr.  (C. 
C.)    269.    18    Fed.    Cas. 

No.   10,739    10 

V.  Indianapolis  Nat.  Bank, 
1  Ind.  App.  462,  27  N. 

E.  650 562 

V.  McBee,   61   Miss.    134    .  . 

384,   396,     486 
V.  May,  5  Cush.  (Mass.)  336 

1097,  1143,  1145,  1154 
V.  Parker,   99    Ala.   239,   13 
So.  520,  42  Am.  St.  Rep. 

48    307,     310 

V.  Parker,    71    Vt.    387,    45 

Atl.  756 986,  1052 

V.  Rolls.  14  C.  B.  691,  78 
E.    C.    L.    691    .  .     547, 

550,     560 
V.  Speer,  49  Super.  Ct.   (N. 

Y.)  1 1072 

V.  State,  132  Ind.  419,  31  N. 

E.  1114 1150-1151 

V.  State,  133  Ind.  178,  32 
X.  E.  836.  33  N.  E. 
119,   18   L.R.A.   567    .. 

1149,  1151 
V.  Williamsburgh,  13   How. 

Pr.  (N.  Y.)  250  ..  259,     265 
Parklnirst  v.  Lowten,  2  Swanst 

(Eng.)    201    170 

V.  Masteller,  57  la.  474,  10 

N.  W.  864    638 

Parkins  v.   Hawkshaw,   2  Stark 

239,  3  E.  C.  L.  393    ....   172,     345 
Parks  V.  Adairsvitlc  Bank   (Ga.) 

78   S.   E.  856    253 

Parow   V.   Cary,   1  How   Pr.    (X. 

Y.)    66    85 

Parr  v.  Loder,  97  App.  Div.  218. 

89  X.  Y.  S.  823   651 

Parsliley  v.  Tliird  Methodist 
l<:pisc(ipa!  Cluirch.  147  X.  Y. 
583,  42  X.  E.  15,  30  L.R.A. 
547.  anirming  4  Misc.  302,  24 

X.  Y.  S.   106    895 

Parsloe  v.   Fov,  2   Dowl.    (Eng.) 

181    '. 861 

Parsons,   Re,   35    Mont.   478,    90 

Pac.   163    1309 

V.    liawlev.    92    la.    175.    (10 

N.  W.  520 1047,  1085 

V.   Miiurv,   101    \'a.   516,    44 

S.  i:.  758 702,     787 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


CXClll 


[References 

Parsons  v.  ^laxwcll,  r)?>  W.  Va. 

39,  44  !S.  K.  17-2 520 

V.  Nuttin-?,  45  la.  404 440 

V.  U.  S..  30  Ct.  CI.  222 1127 

V.  U.  S..  167  U.  S.  324.  17 
S.    Ct.    880.    42    U.    S. 

(L.  ed.)   185   1097 

Pascal,  Re,   146   App.   Div.   836, 
131  N.  Y.  S.  823    .... 
1226.  1247.  1264,  1265,  1298 
Pa.sclial,  Re.  10  Wall.  483,  19  U. 

S.  (L.  ed.)  992 11, 

17.   237.  239.  253.  261. 
611.  620.  673,  862.  869. 
980.     990.     994.     1037,  1051 
Pate   V.    Maples,    (Tenn.)    43    S. 

W.  740   706.  724.  765. 

770.  850.  911.     993 
Paterson  v.  McPherson,  32   Leg. 

Int.  320,  1  W.  N.  C.  4r,4   ....      539 
Patrick,  Re.  136  App.  Div.  450. 
120  N.  Y.  S.  1006   .... 

1269-1271 
V.  Bingaman,   2    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.  113    lOK),  1022 

V.  Ha/en,  10  Vt.  183..  607,     620 

V.  Leacli.  12  Fed.  661 1032 

V.  Leacli,  17  Fed.  476,  3  Mc- 

Crary,  55.")    1000,   1003 

V.  Morrow.  33  Colo.  509.  81 
Pac.   242.   108   Am.   St. 

Rep.  107   980,  1028 

V.  Smitl),   2   Pa.   Super.   Ct. 

113   977 

Patrick's  Succession.  20  La.  Ann. 

204   416,  426,     427 

Patterson.  Re.  234  Pa.  St.  128, 

82  Atl.   1130    267 

V.  Childs.   9   Ca.   App.   646. 

72  S.  E.  45  392.     395 

V.  Fleenor.  89  S.  W.  705,  28 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  582 

723.  779.  784.  903.     950 
V.  Frazer,  100  Tex.  103.  94 
S.  W.  324.  reversing  93 

S.  W.   140    '54!).     .586 

V.  Frazer,    (Tex.)    79   S.  W. 

1077   548.  550,     590 

V.  Kennedv,  122  Midi.  343. 
81  N."W.  91.  6  Detroit 

Leg.  N.  707    334 

V.  Lamb,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

512.  52  S.  W.  98    ...  .      289 
V.  McCovern.   44   App.   Div. 
310.  60  N.  Y.  S.  714   .  . 

375.     378 
V.  Matthews.  3  Bibb.   (Ky.) 

80    562 


are  to  pages.] 

Patterson  v.  Xortliern  Trust  Co., 
132  111.  App.  208,  af- 
firmed 230  ill.  334,  82 
\.  K.  837  and  231  111. 
22,  82  N.  E.  840   .  .267, 

294.   41fl,     468 
V.  Powell.  31  Misc.  250.  64 
N.  Y.  S.  43.  affirmed  56 
App.  Div.  624.  68  N.  Y. 

S.  1145 554 

V.   Read.    43    X.   J.    Eq.    18. 
10  Atl.  807  ..  380,  477, 

478.     482 
V.  Yancev.  97  l\To.  App.  681. 
71  S.  W.  845.  .413,  420, 

432,  434.  442.     562 
Patten  v.   Fullerton,  27  Me.   58 

364,  377.  378 
V.  Glover.  1  App.  Cas.  466  189 
V.  Moor,  29  N.  11.  163  .  .170,  206 
V.  Warner.  11  App.  Cas.  (D. 

C.)     187,    00    Pac.    414     200 
v.  Wilson,  34  Pa.  St.  299.  . 

729.     735 
Pattillo    V.    Alexander.    96    Ca. 

60,  22  S.  E.  646,  29  L.R.A.  616     778 
Patton  V.  Carrett.  37  Ark.  613.     859 
v.   Tavlor,   7   ITow.    132,   12 

LT.  S.  (L.  ed.)   637   ....      327 
Paul   V.    Wilbur,    189    Mass.    48, 

75   N.  E.  63    723.     779 

Paulding  v.   Lee.  20  Ala.   753..      591 
Panll  V.   Paull,   2   Cromp.   &   :\I. 

235   488 

Paulson  V.  Lyson.  12  N.  D.  354. 

1  Ann.  Ca.s.  245.  97  N.  W.  533     805 
Pawlowski   v.  .Tenks.   115   Mich. 

275,   73   N.   W.   238    637 

Paxton  V.  Cobb,  2  La.  137.  .450.     458 
V.  Steele.  86  Va.  311,  10  S. 

E.  1 576 

Payette  v.  Willis.  23  Wash.  299. 

63  Pac.  254    262,  302.     796 

Pavn  V.   Parks,  1  How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.)   94    1045 

Payne,  Re.  151  Fed.  1018,  18 
Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    192 

817.     818 
V.  Avery,   21   Mich.   524    .  . 

282.     284 
V.    Chute.    1    Rolle     (Eng.) 

365   412 

V.  Davis  County.  150  la.  597, 

129   N.  W.  823    766 

V.  Miller.  103  111.  442  ....   333 
V.  Payne.  106  Tenn.  467.  61 

S.  W.  767  1034,  1082 


CXCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  a 

Pavne's    Case.    1    Leon     81,    74 

Eng.  Rep.   (Reprint)   743   ....      115 
Pavton  V.  McQuown,  07  Kv.  7.j7, 
31    S.    W.    874.    53    Am.    St. 

Rep.  437,  31  L.R.A.  33 562 

Peacock  v.  Feaster.  52  Fla.  565, 

42  So.  889  561 

V.  Pembroke,  8  Md.  348    .  . 

497,     501 
V.    Ratliff.    62    Wash.    653. 

114  Pac.  507    961 

Pearce  v.  Gamble,  72  Ala.  341.  . 

296,     302 
Peard  v.  Jones,  Cro.  Car.  (Eng.) 

382   139 

Pearl  v.  Robitchek,  2   Daly    (X. 

Y.)    138    805,  1040 

Pearse  v.  Pearse,  11  Jur.  (Eng.) 

52   162 

Pearson   v.   Dnrrington,   32   Ala. 

227  ..  5.55,  560,  585,  900,  94G,     948 
V.    Morrison,    2   Serg.   &    R. 

(Pa.)    20    503 

V.  State.  56  Te.\.  Grim.  607, 

120  S.  W.  1004   194 

Pease  v.  Dibble,  57  (^ia.  446 370 

Peay  v.  Ringo.  22  Ark.  68.  .591.     601 
Peck  V.  Chouteau,  91   Mo.   138, 
151,    3    S.    W.    577,    60 
Am.  Rep.  236  ....   523. 

524,  525,     530 
V.   Henrich,   167   U.   S.   624, 
17  S.  Ct.  927,  42  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  302  ..662,  666, 

667,     670 
V.   Marling,  22  W.  Va.   708 

793.     908 
V.  Wallace,  19   Ala.   219    .  .      576 
Peckham  v.  Barcalow,  Hill  &  1). 

(N.  Y.)  112 1056 

V.  Ramsey.   208    Mass.   112, 

94   N.    E.    290    .  .    312,     950 
Peckinbaugh  v.  (,)uillin,  12  Neb. 
586.  12  N.  W.  104  .  .  523,  526, 

527.     556 
Pedersen  v.  Superior  Court,  149 

Cal.   389.   86   Pac.    712. 1168.  1276 
Pedlar  v.   Stroud.   116   Cal.   481. 

48    V:u:   371    244,     246 

IVdlcv  V.  Morris.  61  L.  ■>.  <  >.   1'-. 

(Fng.)  21.  65  L.  T.  X.  S.  f.'?.] .  .      123 
Peek  V.  P.oone,  00  (la.  7(;7.  17  S. 

K,   66    196 

]'(■<■]  V.  London  *  XorM,  WC-lcrn 
II.   Co..    11007 1    1    Ch.    (  Kng.) 

607    694 

JVr-|.les  V.  Warren,  51  S.  C.  560. 

29   S.    Iv   6.")9    207 


re  to  pages.] 

Peetsch  v.  Quinn,  6  Misc.  52,  26 

N.  Y.  S.  729 1031 

Peirce  v.  Bent,  69  Me.  381    1055 

V.  Palmer.  31  R.  1.  4:]-2.  Ann. 
Cas.  1912B  181,  77  Atl. 

201    277,  309,  315. 

361,  574,  611.  612,  618,  619 
Pekin  Stave  &  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Ramey,  104  Ark.  1.  147  S.  W. 

83  418 

Pembcrton,  Re,   (Mont.)   63  Pac. 

1043    1338 

Pence  v.   Waugh,   135   Ind.   143, 

34  N.  E.  860 212 

Pendexter  v.  Vernon,  9  Humph. 

(Tenn.)    84    358.  367,     509 

Pendleton  v.  Johnston,  59  Super. 
Ct.  331,  14  N.  Y.  S. 
629,  affirmed  133  N.  Y. 

678,   31   N.   E.   626 941 

V.  Pendleton,  1  Thomp.  &  C. 

(N.  Y.)    95 511 

Penn  v.  McGhee,  G  Ga.  App.  631, 

65  S.  E.  686 100."),  1075 

Pennev    v.     Johnston,     142     Til. 

A^p.   634    641,     G4S 

Penniman  v.  Patchin,  5  Vt.  340 

3.'i9,  360,     385 
Pennington  v.  Nave,  15  Tnd.  323 

701,  912,  945 
V.  State,  13  Tex.  A])p.  44.  .  145 
V.  I'nderwood,    50    Ark.    53, 

19  S.  W.  108   799, 

910.     94G 
V.  Yell,  n  Ark.  212.  52  Am. 

Dec.   262 548,   550, 

551,  567,  568,  569,  570, 
578,  584,  585,  586,  5,S9, 

592,     594 
Pennsylvania  v.  Wheeling   &   B. 
Bridge   Co.,    13   How.   518,    14 

U.  S.    (L.  cd.)    249 1152 

Pennsylvania  Co.  v.  Lombardo, 
49  Ohio  St.  1,  29  N.  E. 
573,    14   L.R.A.   785. . . 

685,     755 
V.  Thatcher,     78     Ohio     St. 
175.  S5  N.  K.  55. . .673. 
735,     998,     1002.     lOO.!, 

100'),  1081.    1082 
Pennsylvania      Trust      <  <>.      v. 
Cowles.  3  Kan.  App.    6(10,    45 

Pac   005    443 

I'.MUiy    V.    C;'.M\v(dl.    1    Mailey    L. 

(S.  C.  I    315    575 

I'etinvuit  v.    iMiote.  27    Ohio    St. 
60('),  22  Am.  lien.  340 446 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCV 


[References 

Penobscot  Boom   Corp.  v.   Lam- 
son,  10  Me.  224,  33  Am.  Dec. 

650    414,  416,     422 

People  V.   Adams,  26   Colo.  412, 

58  Tac.  003    120S,   1301 

V.  Adams,   240    111.    524,    04 

N.    E.    950 1215,  1300 

V.  Albany     Common     Picas, 

19  Wend.   (N.  Y.)   27.  .    1092 
V.  Albany  County,  28  How. 

Pr.   22    714 

V.  Allen,    244    111.    393,    01 

N.  E.  403. .1218,   1223,  130G 
V.  Allison,  68  111.  151.  .617, 

1225,  1272,   1283,  1292, 

1300,  1309 
V.  Amos,  246  111.  299,  92  N. 

E.    857,    138    Am.    St. 

Rep.  239... 1286,   1287, 

1303,  1306,  1311 
V.  Anderson,    21    Colo.    271, 

40   Pac.   508 1226 

V.  Andre,     153     Micb.     531, 

117  N.  W.  55,    15    De- 
troit Leg.  N.   503 206 

V.  Anglim,   33    Colo.   40,   78 

Pac.    087 1257 

V.  Annis,    10    Colo.    53,     14 

Pac.    42 1092 

V.  Apploton,  105  111.  474,  44 

Am.  Rep.  812 1222 

V.  Atty-Gen.,  41  Micb.  728, 

3   N.   W.  205 1146 

V.  Atty-Gen.,   22   Barb.    (N. 

Y.)     114 1145,  1146 

V.  Ballard,    134   N.   Y.   269, 

32  N.  E.  54,  17  L.RA. 

737,  reversing    50    Hun 

125,  8  N.  Y.  S.  918...    1140 

V.  Barker,  50  111.  299 1308 

V.  Barnett  Tp.  100  111.  332 

419,  426 
V.  Barnum,  28  Colo.  349,  64 

Pac.  202  1207 

V.  Barone,  161  N.  Y.  475, 

14  N.  Y.  Crim.  378.  55 

N.  E.  1091 716,  816 

V,  Barrios,  237  111.  527,  86 

N.  E.  1075 1306 

V.  Beattie,   137  IlL  553,  27 

N.  E.  1096,  31  Am.  St. 

Rep.  384. . .1235,   1244,   1245 
V.  Belinski.  205  111.  564,  69 

N.  E.  5 1211 

V.  Bennis,  51  Micb.  422,  10 

N.  W.  794. .1091,  1098, 

1101,  1103,  1114,  1120 


are  to  pages.] 

People  V.  Benjamin,  9  TIow.  Pr. 

419    198 

V.  Benson,  24  Colo.  358,  51 

Pac.  481  1300 

V.  Berrv,    17    Colo.  322,  29 

Pac.    904 1208 

V.  lU'tts,  7  Colo.  453,  4  Pac. 

42    00,  00,       84 

V.  Betts,  20  Colo.  521,  58 
Pac.   1091. .1212,   1221, 

1224.  1298 

V.  Biles,     2     Idabo     114.     0 

Pac.    120 1102 

V.  Blackwcll,  27  Cal.  00.  .  . 

1100,   1123 

V.  Blakeley,   4  Park.   Crim. 

176    213 

V.  Bleecker  St.  &  F.  F.  R. 
Co.,  140  App.  Div.  611, 
125  N.  Y.  S.  1045,  af- 
firming   67    Misc.    577, 

124  N.  Y.  S.  782 1158 

V.  Bleecker   St.   &   F.   F.    R. 

Co.,  140  App.  Div.  Oil, 

125  N.    Y.  S.  1015   af- 
firmed  201    N.    Y.   594, 

95  N.  E.  1136 1159 

V.  Blevins,     251     111.     381, 

Ann.    Cas.    1912C    451, 

96  N.  E.  214 147, 

1107,  1110 
V.  Bond  St.   Sav.   Bank,   10 

Abb.  N.  Cas.     (N.    Y.) 

15 785,  78/,  789, 

920,  921,  922,  924,  925, 

926,     928 

V.  Bootb,  32  N,  Y,  397 

1152,   1156 
V.  Boyd,   2   Edw.     (N.    Y.) 

516     4()9,     482 

V.  Bradt,  6  Jobns.    (N.  Y.) 

318    538 

V.  Bradt,   7   Johns.    (N.  Y.) 

539    518 

V.  Brotberson,  36  Barb.   (N. 

Y.)    662 588,  598, 

611.  620,  623.  1222 

V.  Brown,  16  Cal.  441    

1091,  1093 
V.  Brown,    17   Colo.  431,  30 

Pac.   338.  .  .1182.   1196,  1319 
V.  Brown,    218    111.    301.    75 

N.  E.  907..  1232,  1265,  1306 
V.  Bryce,  36   Colo.    125.    84 

Pac.    810 1268  1209 

V.  Bucbanan,    145   N.   Y.   1, 

39  X.  E.  846 206 


CXCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


[Hcfcreiict'S  arc  to  pagos.] 
People  V.   Buffalo,    7   ]\Iisc.   380,  People      v.      Columbia      County 


28  N.  Y.  S.  Iij8    .  .8.10.     8G1 
Buffalo,   9   Misc.   403.  29 

X.  Y.  S.   1071 ]071 

Burt,  51  Mich.  19'.),  lU  X. 

W.    378 1163 

Burton,  39  Colo.  104.  88 

Pac.      1063,     121     Am. 

St.  Rep.  165  .  .  1276,  1277 
Busscv,  80  Mich.  501,  45 

X.  W.  594 1163 

Bussev,   82   Mich.   49,   40 

X.  VV.  97   1111 

Calton,   5   Utah,   451.   16 

Pac.    902 1123 

Campbell,    26    Colo.   481, 

58   Pac.  591 1250 

Carr,    21    Colo.    525,    43 

Pac.  128 62,  69,  70,       76 

Carson,   78   Hun  544,  29 

X.  Y.  S.  619   1151 

Case,  241  111.  279,  89  X. 

E.      638,      25      L.R.A. 

(X.S.)     578 1235,  1245 

Cayuga  County,  22  Misc. 

616,  50  X.  y'.  S.  16 1119 

Central     Cross-Town     E. 

Co.,   21    Hun     (X.    Y.) 

476  1145,  1140,  1161 

Chamberlain,   242   111. 

260,  89  X.  E.  994 

1168,  1226,  1227,  1283, 

1284,  1298,  1306 
Clark,  72  Cal.  289.  13 

Pac.  858  1101 

Cline,  44  Mich.  290.  fi  X. 

W.    671     1095 

Cole,  84  111.  327..  ..390, 

519,  1218 
Coleman,  210  111.  79,  71 

X.  E.  093 1271, 

1270,   1300 
Colcr,  44   App.   Div.    IS."., 

7  X.  Y.  Ann.  ('as.   119, 

60  X.   Y.   S.  050 7J6 

Coler,  01    App.   Div.  538, 

10  X.  Y.  Ann.  (as.  105, 

15  X.  \.  Crim.  400.  70 

X.  Y.  S.  039 710.     816 

Coler,  (i5   App.   IMv.  217, 

72  X.  Y.  S.  564   1125 

Coler,  67   App.   Div.  fil9. 

73  X.   Y.    S.    1114,    re- 
versing   35    Misc.    454, 

71    X.    Y.   S.    127 H2-» 

(  olcr.  35  :\Iise.  451.  10 
N.  V.  (rim.  23,  71  N. 
V.   S.    127 1102 


Sup'rs,  134  X.  Y.  1,  31 

X.  E.  322    lllti 

V.  Compton.     1     Duer      (X. 

Y.)    512    031.     852 

V.  Comstock,    176    111.    192, 

.52  X.  E.  67 1250, 

1272,  1291 
V.  Cook,  45  Hun  34,  9  X.  Y. 

St.  Rep.  412 140 

V.  Cooper,  20  Hun  (X.  Y.) 

480  852 

V.  Cortland  County,  15  X. 

Y.  S.  748 1119 

V.  Cravath,    58    Misc.    154, 

110  X.  Y.  S.  454 220 

V.  Dane,  59  Mich.    550,    20 

X.   W.   781 1120 

V.  Davis,   52   Mich.   569,   18 

X.  W.  362   182 

V.  Delaware   County,  45  X. 

Y.   202 786-789 

V.  Di  Medicis,  39  Misc.  438, 

17  X.  Y.  Crim.  163,  80 

X.   Y.   S.  212. 716 

V.  District  Ct.,  29  Col.  5,  06 

Pac.    896 1100 

V.  Dowling.    55     Barb.     (X. 

Y.)    197    3330 

V.  Dowling,     37     How.     Pr. 

(X.  Y.)  394 1330 

V.  Duncan,  8  Cal.  App.  187, 

90   Pac.   414 200 

V.  Ellis,    44    Colo.    176.    90 

Pac.    783 105 

V.  Elmer,  3   Paige    (X.  Y.) 

85 852 

V.  Equity     Gas    Light    Co., 

141"  X.   Y.   232,   36   X. 

E.    194    1152,   1156 

V.  Erbaugh,    42    Colo.    480. 

94   Pac.   349.  .  .11,   105.     107 
V.  Essington,   32    Colo.   168, 

75  Pac.  394 1180. 

1221,  1306,  1332,  1336 
V.  Etter,  72  Mich.  175.  40 

X.  W.  241 1102 

V.  Fairchild,  67   X.  Y.  334, 

iilllrmed   8  Hun  223.  .  .    1140 
V.    Farmer.    194    X.    Y.    251. 

S7   X.  K.  -157.  .200.  208.     213 
V.    Kcclcral    I'.ank,    114    Aj)]). 

Div.   :!74.    110  X.   Y.   S. 

4  (    237 

V.    I''c('iiitii.'.;li(  \'.       51        Misc. 
ICS.   11)1  'N.  Y.  S.  700.  . 

00!).  014,  G15.  616,  623,     624 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CXCVU 


[Roferencos 

People  V.  Feiraro,  102  N.  Y.  .j-t.l, 

57  N.  E.  167 816 

V.  Fitch,  51  N.  Y.  S.  ()?3   .  .      146 
V.  Fitspatrick,       35       Afisc. 

456,  71  N.  Y.  S.   1!)1.  . 

9!)2,   1060 
V.  Foote,  93  Mich    38,  52  N. 

W.  1036   1103 

V.  Ford.  54  111.  520 611, 

1211,   1266 
V,  Foster,    40    Misc.    10,    12 

N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  375,  81 

N.   Y.   S.   212,   ailirmiHl 

87  App.  Div.  193,  84  N. 

Y.  S.    97 716 

V.  Freeman,    133    App.   Div. 

630,    118   N.   Y.   S.    199     176 
V.  Frisch,    218    111.    275,    75 

N.  E.  904   .  .1210,  1211,  1306 
V.  Fuhrmann,      103      Mich. 

593,  61   N.  W.  865 1118 

V.  Fuller,   35   Misc.    189,    15 

N.  Y.  Criin.  473,  71  N. 

Y.   S.   487 H6 

V.  Fulton    County,   53    Hun 

254,  6  N.  y!  S.  591..  .      862 
V.  Gallagher,  75  Mich.  512, 

42  N.  W.  1063 226 

V.  Garcia,  25  Cal.  531 340 

V.  General    Electric   R.    Co., 

172   111.    129,   50   X.   E. 

158    1152 

V.  Genesee  County,  61  App. 

Div.     545,     15     N.     Y. 

Crim.  463,  70  N.  Y.  S. 

578,     affirmed     without 

opinion,  168  N.  Y.  640, 

61   X.  F.   1133 1125 

V.  George,  186  111.  122,  133, 

57  X.  E.  804 93,   1276 

V.  Gihbs,    70   Mich.   420,   38 

X.   W.    257 149 

V.  Gibson,  53  Colo.  231.  125 

Pac.   531. ..1090,    1103.  1164 
V.  Gilmore,     214     111.     569. 

73  X.  E.  737,  69  L.R.A. 

701   . .1180,  1250,  1271, 

1276.  1306 
V.  Goddard,    11     Colo.    259, 

18  Pac.  338    1257,  1309 

V.  Gold   Run   Ditch    &    :\Iin. 

Co.,  66  Cal.  138,  4  Pac. 

1152,      56      Am.      Rep. 

80 1151 

V.  Goodrich,  79  111.  148 

758,  1108,  1186,  1256 
V.  Gray,  251   111.  431,  96  X. 

E.'268    ..  .  .1103,  1107,  1121 


arc  to  pages.] 

People  V.  Green.  7   Colo.  237.  3 

Pac.    65,    49    Am.    Rep. 

351     1178,    1194,  1197 

V.  Green,     7     Colo.    247,     3 

Pac.  374,  9    Colo.    500, 

13  Pac.  514   1195 

V.  Green.    9    Colo.    500,    13 

Pac.   514.  .  .1168,    1179, 

1196,   119S,  1199,  1200, 

120S.   1317.  131S 
V.  Grout,   38   Misc.   181.   77 

X.  Y.  S.  321 1119 

V.  Guggenhcimer,    29    JNIisc. 

553,  61  X.  Y.  S.  901  ..  .      234 
V.  Ilahn,  197  111.  137,  64  X. 

E.   342 1181,   1250, 

1258,  1271 
V.  Hall.  88  Mich.  132,  48 

X.  W.  869 342 

V.  Hallett,  1  Colo.  3-52..  12, 

15,  1093, 1175 
V.  Hamberg,  84  Cal.  468.  24 

Pac.    298 327,     328 

V.  Hampartjoomian,  198  X. 

Y.  515,' 91   X.  E.  286.  .      716 
V.  Hanifan,    99    Mich.    516, 

59   X.   W.   611 716 

V.  Ilardenbergh,     8     Johns. 

{ X.  Y. )    335 988 

V.  Harvev,  41   111.  277 1308 

V.  Hatch!;   60  Mich.  229,  26 

X.  W.  860 454 

V.  Hays,     28     Colo.    82,    62 

Pac.  832    1220 

V.  Heart,   1   Cal.   App.   166, 

81   Pac.   1018 178 

V.  Heed,  1  Idaho  531 1114 

V.  Heiselbetz,  26  Misc.  100, 

5  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  165, 

13  X.  Y.  Crim.  470,  55 

X.  Y'.  S.  4,  appeal  dis- 
missed    30     App.     Div. 

199,    13    N.    Y.    Crim. 

223,  51  X.  Y.  S.  685.  .  . 

147,  716,  717,  815 
V.  Hendryx.  58  Mich.  319. 

25  X.  W.  299  1110 

V.  Hess,  8  App.  Div.  143,  40 

X.  Y.  S.  486. .163,  187, 

193,  197 
V.  Hill,  182  111.  425,  55  X. 

E.  542 1299,  1311 

V.  Hillhousc.  SO  Mich.  580, 

45  X.  ^V.  484 169,  1095 

V.  Hooper,  218  111.  313,  75 

X.  E.  S96..1240,  1241, 

1244,  1299 


cxcvm 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

People  V.  ITusgard,  217  111.  ;ili(i, 

75  N.  E.  371 1244.  12.51 

V.  Humbert,     51     Colo.     60, 

117  Pac.  139 1220, 

1225,    1228.  12G0 
V.  Hurst.    41    Mich.    328.    1 

X.  W.  1027. .319,  1102,  1110 
V.  liigersoll,  58  N.  Y.  1,  17 

Am.  Rep.  178,  affirming 

G7  Barb.  472 1152,  1157 

V.  Jacob,     (Cal.)      12     Pac. 

222    1161 

V.  Jacobs.  5  Hun    428,    af- 
firmed 66  N.  Y.  8 852 

V.  Jefferson        County,      35 

App.  Div.  239,  54  N.  Y. 

S.   782    1119 

V.  John,  212  111.  615,  72  N. 

E.  789   1223,  1277 

V.  Johnson,  40  Colo.  460,  90 

Pac.  1038   1213,  1306 

V.  Justices,    1    Johns.    Cas. 

182     34,  1330 

V.  Kane,  60  Hun  585  mem., 

15  N.  Y.  S.  012 627 

V.  Kavanagh,  220  111.  49,  77 

X.  E.  107,  110  Am.  St. 

Rep.  223  ..1170,  1207,  1288 
V.  Keegan,  18  Colo.  237,  32 

Pac.  434,  36  Am.  St. 

Rep.  274 1243 

V.  Keegan,  30  Colo.  71,  69 

Pac.  524..  .1218,  1222, 

1223,   1227,  1306 
V.  Keithley,  225  111.  30,  80 

N.   E.   50    1212,  1306 

V.  Kelsey,    32    Colo.    1,    75 

Pac.   390    1306 

V.  Kingston,   101  X.   Y.   82, 

4  X.   E.  348 453 

V.  Knefel,   233   111.    133,   84 

X.  E.  172    1306 

V.  Kramer,  33  Misc.  209,  15 

X.  Y.  Crim.  257,  68  X. 

Y.  S.  383. . .1131,  1143, 

1150.   1163,  1164 
V.  Kiirminsky,       23       Misc. 

504,  52  N.  v.  S.  609.  .    1114 
V.  I.aml),  85  Hun     (X.    Y.) 

171,  32  X.   Y.  S.  584.. 

417,  420,     431 

V.   Lainhorn,  2  III.  123 

492,   1210 
V.   J.an<h-s.  ]r,\    111.  App.  181    1091 

V.   I.eary,  84   HI.    190 1241 

V.  Lock  wood,    9    IJaly     (  N. 

Y.)    08    '. 864 


are  to  pages.] 

People   V.    Loew,   26   Civ.   Proc. 

132,  19  Misc.  248,  44  X. 

Y.  S.  42    1159 

V.  Long.    50    Mich.    249,    15 

X.    W.    105 038 

V.  Lvtle,    7    App.    Div.   5.j3, 

40  X.  Y.  S.  153 1099 

V,  Macauley,    230    111.    208, 

82  X.  *E.  612,  120  Am. 

St.  Rep.  287 42.  93, 

1181.  1240,  1297 
V.  MacCabe,    18    Colo.    ISO. 

32    Pac.    280.    36    Am. 

St.  Rep.  270,  19  L.R.A. 

231    . . .758,  1250,  1318,   1319 
V.  McClellan,  118  App.  Div. 

177,  103  X.  Y.  140,  af- 
firmed   188   X.   Y.   618, 

81  X.  E.  1171 1161 

V.  McClellan,  119  App.  Div. 

410.  104  X.  Y.  S.  447..    1152 
V.  McElvanev,  36  Misc.  310, 

10  X.  Y'.  Ann.  Cas.  316, 

73  X.  Y.  S.  639... 710,     815 
V.  McLeod,    1    Hill     (X.Y.) 

377,  37  Am.  Dec.  32S.  .    1164 
V.  Macy,   62   How.   Pr.    (X. 

Y.^,    65    1152,  1155 

V.  Magallones,   15   Cal.   426  1098 

V.  Mahon.  1  l^tah.  205 213 

V.  Maloney,  240  111.   96,   88 

X.  E.  287 1306 

V.  Manhattan    Real    Estate 

&    Lumber   Co.    175   X. 

Y.    133,   67   X.   E.   219, 

reversing  74  App.  Div. 

535,  77  X.  Y.  S.  837 .  . 

1152.  1157 
V.  Manns,  28  Colo.  S3,  62 

Pac.  840 1205 

V.  Mariposa  Co.,  39  Cal.  683 

230,  415,  424,  428,     430 
V.  Marsh,   3   Cow.    (X.   Y.) 

334    540 

V.  Matthews.    217     111.     94, 

75  X.  E.  444 1289, 

1308,   1309 

V.  May.  3  Mich.  598 11. 

1090,   1093 
V.  Mead.    29    Coin.    344.    OS 

Pac.  241    .  .    1211,  1273, 

1277,     1294,    1303 
V.  Mctrdpolilaii      Hank.      7 

Wow.    I'r.    (X.    V.)     144    1159 
V.   Mctrotuditaii      'rclcplioiic 

iV      Tch-raph     Co..     04 

I  low.    I'r.     (\.    \.\     (iO. 

II  AM).   .\.   Cas.   3IU.  .    1147 


TAT5LK    OF    CASES. 


CXCIX 


[References 

People  V.  Miller.  19.3  111.  021,  63 

X.   E.  504   1,311 

V.  Miner,   2   Lans.    (N.   Y.) 

39U..1131,    1143,    n-J4, 

114rj,  1150 
V.  Mole,  85  App.  Div.  33,  Sii 

N.  Y.  S.  747    477 

V.  Montague,  71  iMieh.  447, 

39  X.  W.  585   1103 

V.  Montgonierv.     lOI     App. 

Div.  338.  i9  N.  V.  Crim. 

117,  91  N.  Y.  S.  705 

7](i.  816 
V.  Moutrav,  166  111.  030.  47 

N.  E.'79  ..  1241.  1290,  1306 

V.  Murphy,  47  Cal.  103...  1122 

V.  Murphy,  119  111.  159.  6 

N.  E.  488  1214,  1240 

V.  Murray.  23  Civ.  Pro.  71, 
33  N.  Y.  S.  160.  af- 
firmed 138  X.  Y'.  635, 

33  X.  E.  1084 417, 

422,  425 

V.  Murray  Hill  Bank,  10 
App." Div.  328,  41  X.  Y. 
S.  804    1157 

V.  Mutual  Union  Tel.  Co.. 
2  McCartv  Civ.  Proc. 
(X.  Y.)    295 1101 

V.  Xavarre,  22  Mich.  1 1150 

V.  Xedrow.  25  111.  App.  28, 
122  111.  303,  13  X.  E. 
533    979 

V.  XefT,  191  X.  Y.  286,  84 
N.  E.  63,  aflirming  121 
App.  Div.  44,  105  X. 
Y.  S.  559    1102,  1125 

V.  Kevins,   1   Hill    (X.   Y.) 

154   624 

V.  Xew   York,    11   Abb.   Pr. 

(X.  Y.)   66 512 

V.  Xew  York,  29  Barb.   (X. 

Y.)    622    199 

V.  Xew  York,  32  Barb.  (X. 

Y.)  35,  19  How.  Pr. 

155  1152 

V.  X^ew      York      Bldg.-Loan 

Banking  Co.,  112  App. 

Div.   167,   98   X.   Y.   S. 

290   910 

V.  Xew        Y^ork        Common 

Pleas,     13    Wend.     (X. 

Y.)    649,   28   Am.   Dec. 

495    1057 

V.  Xiagara    Countv,    78    X. 

Y.  622 ' 713,     714 


are  to  pages.] 

People  V.  Xicholas.  36  Colo.  42, 

84  Pac.  67   121S 

V.  Xorth       San       Francisco 

Homestead  &   IJ.  Assoc. 

38  Cal.  504 1101 

V.  Xorton,   10  Cal.  430.  .  .  . 

239,   254,     261 
V,  Oakland      Water      Front 

Co.,    118    Cal.    234,    50 

Pac.    305    1143,  1151 

V.  O'Brien,  196  111.  250,  63 

X.  E.  667    1311 

V.  O'Farrell,  247  111.  44.  93 

X.  E.  136   1100,  HOT 

V.  Oishei,   20  Misc.    103,   12 

X.    Y.    Crim.    302,    45 

X.    Y.    S.    49    1241 

V.  Olson,   258   111.   283,    101 

X.    E.    521     1306 

V.  O'Xeill.    107    Mich.    556, 

65  X.  W.  540    ..    1101,  1103 
V.  Onondaga       Countv,       3 

How.  Pr.  X.  S.  1,  4  X. 

Y.  Crim.  102 713,     714 

V.  Pacheco,   29   Cal.   210.  .  . 

1150,  1151 
V.  Pack,  115  Mich.  009,   74 

X.    W.    385,    4    Detroit 

Leg.  X.   1022    983 

V.  Palmer,  61   111.  255    1284 

V.  Palmer,    154    X.    Y.    133. 

47  X.  E.  1084.  alllrming 

21  App.  Div.  101,  47  X. 

Y.  S.  403    1096 

V.  Parker,    231    IH.   478,    83 

X.  E.  282  affirming  120 

111.  App.  538    ..  .! 415 

V.  Patrick,    182   X.   Y.   131, 

74   X.   E.   843    ..    176. 

222.  224,     226 
V.  Pattison.  241   111.  89,  89 

X.    E.    254     1218,   1224 

V.  Pavson,   210   111.    82,    71 

X.    E.    692    1301 

V,  Payson,  215  111.  476.  74 

X.  E.  383..  1181.  1271,  1297 

V.  Pearson,  55  Cal.  472 1238 

V.  Pendleton,   17   Colo.  544, 

30  Pac.   1041    1308 

V.  Perriman,  72  Mich.   184, 

40  X.  W.  425 1102- 

V.  Peterson,    60    App.    Div. 

118,    15    X.    Y^    Crim. 

421,  69  X.  Y.  S.  941.. 

208.     213- 
V.  Pickler,    186    111.   64,    57 

X.  E.  893 1239,  1242^ 


cc 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Ri'ferencfS 

People  v.  rivnioutli  P]aiil<  Itoad 

Co.;^  32  Mich.  248.  .2o(i, 

2.57.     258 
V.  Powell,   87   Cal.   ;548,   25 

Pac.  481,  11   L.R.A.  75 

1100,  1107,  1122 
V.  Pratt,  133  Mich.  125, 

94   X.   W.   752,   67 

L.R.A.  923  ..  173,  174, 

193,  194 
V.  Prendergast,  157  App. 

Div.  486,  142  N.  Y.  S. 

611  865 

V.  Prendergast,   67   Misc. 

541,  125  N.  Y.  S.  713  .   717 
V.  Propper,  220  111.  455,  77 

N.  E.  208. .1181,  1250, 

1256,  1269,  1271,  1273 

V.  Quick,  92  111.  580  406 

V.  Reaugh,  224  111.  541.  79 

N.  E.  936  1190,  1300 

V.  Reid,  139  App.  Div.  551, 

124  X.  Y.  8.  205  ....   629 
V.  Rice,  144  X.  Y.  249.  39 

X.  E.  88  629,  630 

V.  Robinson.    .32    Colo.    241, 

75  Pac.  922 1217. 

1222,  1225,  1231,  1247, 

1306,  1308 

V.  Robles,  34  Cal.  591    340 

V.  Rochester  &  R.  L.  R.  Co., 

76  X.  Y.  294,  affirming 

14  Hun  S71 851 

V.  Rosendale,  76  Hun  103, 
27  X.  Y.  S.  837,  af- 
firmed 142  X\  Y.  126, 
36  X.  E.  806    1J47 

V.  Rosenthal.      197     X.     Y. 

394.  90  X.  E.  991   ....    1115 

V.  Rvalls,    8    Colo.    332.    7 

Pac.   290    1218,  1227 

V.  St.  Louis,  e^:c.,  R.  Co., 
19  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (X. 
Y.)    1    629,     630 

V.  Salomon,     184     111.     490, 

56   X.   E.   815 1200, 

12 18,    1219,    1264 

V.  Santa  Clara  Lumhcr  Co., 
55  Misc.  507,  106  X.  Y. 
S.  024,  reversed  on  au- 
ollicr  [xiiiit  12(!  A|ip. 
Div.  ok;,  1  ill  N.  ^  .  S. 
280    1  145 

T.  Santa  Clara  Lumber  Co.. 
120  App.  Div.  OKi,  1  10 
X.  Y.  S.  280.  60  Misc. 
150,  113  X.  Y.  S.  70  ..    1156 


are  to  pages.] 

People  V.  Scannell.  36  Misc.  40, 

72  X.  Y.  S.  449   lUG 

V.  Schintz,   181   111.  574,  54 

X.  E.   1011    1266 

V.  Schreiber,    250     ill.    345. 

95  X.  E.  189    105 

V.  Selig,    25    Colo.    r>[)3.    55 

Pac.    722..  12 18,     1224, 

1220,  1227 
V.  Scvmour,  16  Cal.  332,  76 

Am.   Dec.    521    856 

V.  Shaver,  120  Cal.  354,  52 

Pac.   651    342 

V.  Shirley,  214  111.   142,  73 

X.    E.    303    1306 

V.  Silha,    252     111.    385,    96 

X.  E.  826    1308 

V.  Sindlinger,   28  Colo.   258, 

64  Pac.  191  .  .  1210,  1211 
V.  Slayton,    123    :SIich.   397, 

82  X.  W.   205,   81   Am. 

St.  Rep.  211    627 

V.  Smith,    200    111.    442,    00 

X.   E.   27,   93    Am.   St. 

Rep.  20()    1256 

V.  Smith,  3  Caines   (X.  Y.) 

221,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  497 

609,    611,     023 

V.  Smyth,   28   Cal.   21    1124 

V.  Spalding,    2     Paige     (X. 

Y.)    320    131.  132,     461 

V.  Spencer,  01  Cal.  128.  ..  . 

315,  1213 
V.  Sj)ring  Lake  Drainage  & 

Levee     Dist.,     253     111. 

479,  97  X.  E.  1042..  1161 
V.  Staten       Island       Rank, 

112   App.    Div.   791.   99 

X.  Y.  S.  480    237, 

240.    2.54.    256,    259,     262 
V.  State       University,       24 

Colo.  175.  49  Pac.  286  1155 
V.  Stephens,  52  X''.  Y.  306  1160 
V.  Steuben,  C.  PI..  12  Wend. 

(  X.  Y. )   200    800 

V.  Stirlen,  224    111.   030.    79 

X.   E.   909    1210,   1306 

v.  Stratton.    25    Cal.    242.  .    1151 

V.  Strong,   40    Cal.   302 1122 

V.  Sullivan.  218  111.  419,  75 

X.  E.   1005    1306 

V.  Summers,  115  ^lich.  537, 

73  X.  \V.  8 IS.  4  Detroit 
Leg,  X,  957   1095 

V.  Sutter    St.    1!.    Co.,    117 
Cal.    004,    49    I'ac.    730 

1151,    1161 


lABl.E    Ok     CASES. 


CCl 


[References 

People   V.   Swift,   59   Mich.   529, 

2(!   X.   W.   U94 11()3 

V.  Talmago,  6  Cal.  256 1148 

V.  Tanquarv,  48  Colo.  122, 

]()!>  Ta'c.  200  .  .  .  1300,  1308 
V.  Taylor,  32  Colo.  250,  75 

Pae.  914 758,  1256 

V.  Taylor,  17   Misc.  505,  40 

N.  Y.  S.  321    1111 

V.  Thacker.   108  Mich.   052, 

OG    N.    W.    562    1105 

V.  Thomas.  36  Colo.  136,  10 

Ann.  Cas.  886,  91  Tac. 

36    1277 

V.  Thompson,  103  Mich.  80, 

61  N.  W.  345   346 

V.  Thornton,  228  111.  42,  81 

N.  E.  793    1306 

V.  Tichvell,  4  Utah  506,   12 

Pac.  61    1107 

V.  Tobacco     Mfg.     Co.,     42 

How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    162  1161 
V.  Treadwell,  66  Cal.  400,  5 

Pac.  686   1272,  1276 

V.  Turcott,    65    Cal.    126,   3 

Pac.  461    1106 

V.  Turner,    1    Cal.    143,    52 

Am.  Dec.  295 1281, 

1302,  1330 

V.  Turner,  1  Cal.  152 1330 

V.  Turner,  1  Cal.  190.  .1177,  1329 
V.  Tweed,    13    Abb.    Pr.    N. 

S.     (N.    Y.)    25..  1152,  1153 
V.  Van  Alstine,  57  Mich.  69, 

23  N.    W.    594    213 

V.  Vanderbilt,  26  N.  Y.  287, 

affirming  38  Barb.  282, 

24  How.  Pr.  301 1155 

V.  Varnum,  28  Colo.  349,  64 

Pac.  202..  .1216,  1266,  1267 
V.  Walbridge,   3   Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    120    681 

V.  Waldron,    28    Colo.    249, 

64  Pac.  186   1218, 

1227,  1228 
V.  Walkev,  26  Colo.  483.  58 

Pac.  591    .  .    1218,  1220,  1265 
V.  Walters,  98  Cal.  138,  .32 

Pac.   864    1112 

V.  Webster,  28  Colo.  223,  64 

Pac.  207   .  .   1219,  1301,  1309 
V.  Webster.  31    Colo.  43.  71 

Pac.    1116    1224,   1227 

V.  Weeber,  26  Colo.  229,  57 

Pac.  1079   1277,   1299 

V.  Westclioster    County,    60 

Hun   585    mem.,    15    N. 

Y.  S.  580 477 


are  to  pages.] 

People  V.  Western  Meat  Co.,  13 
Cal.  App.  539,  110  I'ae. 

338    42U,     432 

V.  Wheeler.  259  111.  99,  102 

N.  E.  188 1254 

V,  White,    251    111.    67,    95 

N.  E.  1036    333 

V,  Whittemore,      102      Mich. 

519,  61  N.  W.  13    1105 

V.  Wickes,  112  App.  Div. 
30,  39,  51,  20  N.  Y. 
Crira.   9,   98    N.   Y.    S. 

163    212,  1267 

V.  Wilson,  5  Johns.  (N.  Y.) 

368    611,     623 

V.  Wood,  99   Mich.   620,   58 

N.   W.   638    1 104 

V.  Wright,  89  Mich.  70,  50 

N.   W.   792    1111 

People's  Bank  v.  Brown,  112 
Fed.  654,  50  C.  C.  A. 
411.  7  Am.  Bankr.  Rep. 

475    163 

V.  Thompson.    24    Civ.   Pro. 

62,   30   N.   Y.   S.   858..      261 
People's  Casualty  Claim  Adjust- 
ment   Co.    V.    Darrow,    70    111. 
App.  22,  affirmed   172  111.  62, 
49  N.  E.  1005.. 744,  780,  873, 

877,    918,     940 
Peoples'    Home     Sav.     Bank    v. 
Rauer,    2    Cal.    App.    445,    84 

Pac.   329    415 

People's  Nat.  Bank  v.  Geist- 
hardt,  55  Neb.  232,  75  N.  W. 

582    886 

Pepper   v.   George,    51    Ala.    190 

266,     270 
Pequamiek     Co.     v.     Brady,     1 
Phila.    (Pa.)   220,  8  Leg.'  Int. 

126   358 

Percifull    v.    Wilson,    3    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  759    914 

Percy,  Re,  36  N.  Y.  651  .  .  93, 
1168.  1170,  1259,  1260, 
1262,  1286,  1295,  1315.  1325 

V.  Clary,  32  Md.   245    897 

Peri  V.  New  York  Cent.  &  H. 
R.  R.  Co..  152  N.  Y.  521.  46 
N.  E.  849,  affirming  12  App. 
Div.  625,  43  N.  Y.  S.   1162.. 

755,  996.  1043 
Peries  v.  Aycinena,  3  Wntts   & 

S.    (Pa.)    64    245,  248,     404 

Perine   v.    Dunn.    3    Johns.    Ch. 

(N.  Y.)  538  . 674 

Perkerson  v.  Reams,  84  Ga.  298. 

10    S.    E.    624     479 


ceil 


TABLE    OF    CASKJ3. 


[References 

Perkins  v.  Boyd,  16  Colo.  App. 

266,   65   Pae.   350    854 

V.  Grant,    2    La.    Ann.    328     391 
V.  Guv,    55    Misc.    153,    30 

Am.  Rep.  510 206 

V.  McDuffee,    63   Me.    181.  . 

25,  26,     885 
V.  Perkins,  9  Heisk,  (Tenn.) 

95   1026 

V.  West  Coast  Lumber  Co., 
129    CaL   427,    62    Pac. 

57    233,    307,     311.  . 

Perrv  v.  Bailey,  12  Kan.  539..  961 
V.  Chester,  53  N.  Y.  240..  1056 
V.  Chester,    36    Super.    Ct. 

(N.  Y.)   228 1054 

V.  Dicken,    105   Pa.   St.   83, 
51  Am.  Rep.  181.. 328, 

332,   729,     730 
V,  Lord,    111    Mass.    504.. 

232,   432,    706,     779 
V.  Myer,   89    N.   Y.    S.   347 

978,     992 
V.  Simpson  Waterproof  Mfg. 

Co.,  40  Conn.  313    

347,     349 
V,  Smith,   C.   &  M.  554.   41 
E.   C.   L.   301,   9   M.   & 

W.  681  183 

V.  State,  3  G.  Greene   (la.) 

550    1273,   1291,  1313 

V,  Sulier,   92   Mir.h.   72,   52 

N.  W.  801    635 

Perrv-Mason  Shoe  v.  Sykes,  72 
Miss.    399,     17     So.    171,    28 

L.R.A.  277    1018 

Pershing  v.  Iron  City  &  ITam- 
mondville  Imp.  Co.,  46  Pittsb. 

L.  J.   (Pa.)   167   1009 

Person    v.    Leathers,    67    Miss. 

548,  7   So.  391    484,     507 

Peru  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  v.  \\'liip|)lp 
File,  etc.,  Co.,   109  Mass.  464 

375.  389,   401,     40.1 
Perzel  v.  Tousey,  52  Suj)er.  Ct. 

79    533 

Pessano  v.  Evre,   13  Pa.  Super. 

Ct.   157    .  .'. 544 

Peteler  Portable  R.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Nortliwesfcrn  Adamnnt  Mfg. 
Co.,  60  Minn.   127,  61    N.  W. 

1024   4S7 

PctfTH  V.   Lawson,   66  Tex.   336, 

17  S.  W.  734 39(1,     ;!n7 

V.  State,    166    Ala.    35,    51 

So.   952    204 


are  to  pages'] 

Petersburg  v.  Cocke,  94  Va.  244. 
26    S.   E.  576,   36   L.R.A.   432 

98,      103 
Petersen    v.    Petersen,    76    Neb. 
282.  107  N.  W.  391,  124  Am. 

St.   Rep.   812    1034 

Peterson,   Re,   3   Paige    (N.  Y.) 

510     1174,  1241 

Re,  74  Hun  93,  26  N.  Y.  S. 

405   623 

V.  Reisdorph,   49   Neb.   529, 

68  N.  W.  943   641 

V.  Struby,  25  Ind.  App.  19, 

56  N.  E.  733,  rehearing 
denied  25  Ind.  App.  25, 

57  N.  E.  599    1052 

V.  Toner,   80  Mich.   350,  45 

N.   W.   346    641 

V.  Watson,  1  Blatchf.  &  H. 
487,    19   Fed.   Cas.   No. 

11,037    804,  1039 

Petrie  v.  Williams,  68  Hun  589, 

23   N.   Y.   S.   237    718 

Petrv  V.  Nelson,  144  Kv.  1,  137 

S.'^W.  783   " 933 

Pettibone  v.  Thomson,  72  Misc. 

486,  130  N.  Y.  S.  284   985 

Pettingill    v.    McGregor,    12    N. 

H.  179   541 

Pettis     V.     Kellogg,     7      Cush. 

(Mass.)    456   367,     475 

Pew    V.    Gloucester    First    Nat. 

Bank,  130  Mass.  391 889 

Peyser  v.   Wilcox,   64  How.  Pr. 

"(N.  Y.)    525    360,   575,     577 

Peyton,  Re,  12  Kan.  398..  1283, 

1296,  1304 
Pfau    V.    Fullcnwider,    102    111. 

App.  499   600 

Pfister     V.     Gillespie.     2     Johns. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    109    541 

V.  Wade.    69    Cal.    133,    10 

Pac.  309    494 

Pliclps      V.      Brewer,      9      Cusli. 
(Mass.)     390,    57    Am. 

Dec.   56    420 

V.  CoL'gesliall,    13   La.   Ann. 

440 858 

V.  Emery.   24   N.   Y.   AVkly. 

Dig!^  541    .".      733 

V.  Hall,  2  Tyler    (Vt.)    399     329 
V.  Hodge,    6   La.    Ann.   524 

404.     408 
V.  Hunt,  40  Conn.  97.  .787, 

922,  923,  928 
V.  Patterson,  25  Ark.  185.  .  958 
V.  Preston,  9  La.  Ann.  488 

384,   391,     408- 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CClll 


[References 

Phelps  V.  Worcester,  11  N.  H.  'A 

718,     719 
Phenix   v.   Romer,   1   Edm.   Sel. 

Cas.    (N.  Y.)    353   862 

Philadelphia   v.   Jacobs,   22    W. 

N.    C.    (Pa.)     348 4G7 

V.  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  1 
App.    Div.    387,    37    N. 

Y.   S.   291 262,     264 

Philadelphia,     etc.,     R.     Co.     v. 
Christman,    4    Penny.     (Pa.) 

271    397,     398 

Philadelphia  F.  Assoc,  v.  Flem- 
ing, 78  Ga.  733,  3  S.  E. 

420 203,  227,  330,     532 

V.  Ruby,    58    Neb.    730,    79 

N.  W.   723    508 

Philbrook,  Re,  105  Cal.  471,  38 
Pac.  511,   884,  45  Am. 

St.  Rep.  59    1196,     1200 

V.  Moxey,  191  Mass.  33,  77 

N.   E.  520    781,     793 

V.  Newman,  85   Fed.   139.. 

1282,   1290,    1314,  1319 
V.  Superior  Ct.  Ill  Cal.  31, 

43  Pac.  402   28,     679 

Philip,    Ex    p.,    26     N.    Bruns. 

(Can.)    178    307 

Philips  V.  Blagge,  3  Johns.   (N. 

Y.)     141    460 

Phillips  V.  Atty.-Gen.,  167  Mich. 

687,  133  N.  W.  830  .  .  1146 
V.  Benson,  82  Ala.  500,  2 

So.  93  296 

V.  Blair,   38   la.  649... 300,     302 
V.  Bonham,     16     La.     Ann. 

387    632 

V,  Bridge,    11   Mass.   242.  . 

328,   568,     570 
V.  Broadley,  11  Jur.  (Eng.) 

2(;4   958 

V.  Chase,  201  Mass.  444,  87 
N.  E.  755.  131  Am.  St. 
Rep.      400.. 162,      209, 

210,     222 
V.  Dobbins,  56  Ga.  617.  ..  . 

3S3,     409 
V.  Edsall,    127   111.   535,   20 

N.   E.  801    560,     914 

V.  Germon,  43  Ta.  101 995 

V.  Hooue.  63  Neb.  192,  88 

N.  W.  180  1020, 

1035,  1037,  1084 
V.  Jansen,  2  Esp.  (Eng.) 

624  141 

V.  Louisville,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

153  Fed.  795 668,     728 


are  to  pages.] 

Phillips  V.  Mackay,  54  N.  J.  L. 

319,  23  Atl.  941    1056 

V.  Overton,  4  Hayw.  (Tenn.) 

291..  274,  702,  740,  747,     748 
V.  Phillips,  185  III.  629,  57 

N.  E.  796 132,     133 

V.  Phillips,  (Ky.)  80  S.  W. 
826,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
415,  rehearing  denied 
81  S.  W.  689,  26  Ky.  L. 

Rep.  415   "296,     302 

V,  Pound,   7   Exch.   881,   16 

Jur.   645    115 

V.  Pullen,  50  N.  J.  L.  439, 

14  Atl.  222 384, 

404,     407 
V.  Rhodes,  2  Colo.  App.  70, 
29    Pac.    1011    ..    515, 

580,     589 

V.  Rounds,  33  Me.  357 

308,     410 
V.  Simmons,    20    How.    Pr. 
(N.    Y.)    342,    11   Abb. 

Pr.  287   906 

V.  South  Park  Com'rs.,  119 
111.  626,   10  N.   E.  230 

670,     914 
V.  Stagg,   2   Edw.    (N.   Y.) 

108    983,     988 

V.  Stanton,  9  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

503    878- 

V.  Stewart,     24     La.     Ann. 

152   964 

Philman    v.   Marshall,    103    Ga. 
82,  29  S.  E.  598  ..   154, 

193,     198 
Philpot  V.  McArthur,  10  Me.  127     541 
Phipps   V.    Willis,    53   Ore.    190, 
18    Ann.    Cas.    119,    96    Pac. 
866,  99  Pac.  935    .  .    274,  275, 

279,  281,     284 
Phiscator  v.  Rice.  147  Mich.  411, 

110  N.  W.   1095    642 

Phoebus    V.    Webster,    40    Misc. 

528,  82  N.  Y.  S.  868 216 

Phoenix     Ins.     Co.     v.     Winter- 
smith,  98  N.  W.  987,  30  Kv. 

L.  Rep.  369   180.     181 

Pickard  v.  Pickard,  83  Hun  338, 

31  N.  Y.  S.  987 241,  242, 

243,    800,     952: 
V.  Yencer,   21   Hun   403,   10 
Y.  Wkly.  Dig.  271   .... 

1075,  1077 
V.  Yencer.   10   N.   Y.  Wkly. 

Dig.  271    104* 


CCIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Pickert   v.   Hair,    146    Mass.    1, 

15   N.   E.   79    341 

Pickett    V.    Bates,    3    La.    Ann. 

627    366,  396,     399 

V.  Ford,    4    How.     (Miss.) 

246   498 

V.  Gore,    (Tenn.)    58  S.  W. 

402    ...    883,  911,  943,     954 
V.  Merchants'     Nat.     Bank, 

32   Ark.   346 356,     383 

Pidgeon   v.   Williams,    21    Grat. 

(Va.)    251    571,  572,     573 

Pierce  v.  Brown,  8  Biss.  534,  19 
Fed.  Gas.  No.  11,143    ..    383, 

396,     398 
V.  Farrar,    126    S.    W.    932     210 
V.  Indseth,    106    U.    S.   546, 
1   S.  Ct.  418,  27   U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)    254    334 

V.  Kneeland,    3  6    Wis.    672, 

84  Am.  Dec.  726 773 

V.  Lawrence,         16         Lea 
(Tenn.)    572,   1   S.   W. 

204   987 

V.  Newlin,  46  Misc.  122,  91 

N.  Y.  S.  377   880,     881 

V.  Norton.  82  Conn.  441.  74 

Atl.  686    ...    221,  224,     869 
V.  Palmer,     31     R.     I.    432, 
Ann.    Gas.    19r2B    181, 

77  Atl.  201   600 

V.  Parker,  121  Mass.  403.. 

768,  805,  878,     915 
V.  Perkins,   17   N.  G.  25(,).  . 

267,     479 
V.  RodlifT,    05    Me.    346,    50 

Atl.  32   136 

V.  Strickland,  2   Story  292, 
19  Fed.  (as.  No.  11,147 

412,  450,  452,  455,     456 
V.  Underwood,     103     Mich. 

62,  61   N.  W.  344    601 

Piercv  v.   Piercv.   18   Gal.   App. 

75f,  124  Pac.'561    205 

Pieris,  Re.  S2  App.  Div.  466,  81 
N.  Y.  S.  927,  allirmed  176  N. 
Y.  566,  68  N.  K.  1123   .  .   745. 

784.  980, 1060,  1081 
Pierrepont    v.     Sassee,     1     Tex. 

App.  Giv.  Gas.  §  1295.  .  .  .385,     308 
Pierse  v.  Thornton,  44  Ind.  235     5!)S 
Pierwon  v.  Foster,  3  N.  J.  L.  54(i       3(1 
V.    Ilolninn,         5         Blatchf. 

(hid.)     182    440 

V.  SafTord,  :iO  llun    (N.  Y.) 

521    993 

V.  Sleortz,        IMorr.        ( la. ) 

];Hi    173,    187,     193 


are  to  pages.] 

Piggott  V.  Addicks,  3  G.  Greene 
(la.)    427,  50  Am.  Dec. 

547   518 

V.  Kirkpatrick,  31  Ind.  261      151 
Pike  V.   Emerson,   5  N.  H.  393, 

22  Am.  Dec.  468.. 489,     512 
V.  Martindale,   91   Mo.  268, 

1  S.  W.  858    ....    685,     686 
V.  Ziegler,    4    Kulp     (Pa.) 

441    768 

Pilger  V.  Gow,  21  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)   155   457 

Pilkington  v.  Brooklyn  Heights 
R.  Co.,  49  App.  Div.  22,  30 
Civ.    Proc.   276,    63    N.    Y.    S. 

211   808,  812,  1008,  1075 

Pillsbury  v.  Dugan,  9  Ohio  117, 

34  Am.  Dec.  427    417 

Pina,  Re,  112   Cal.   14,   44  Pac. 

332    151,     152 

Pinder  y.  Morris,  3  Gaines    (N. 

Y.)   165   1048 

y.  Morris,  Golem.  &  G.  Gas. 

(N.   Y.)    489    1049 

Pinkard  v.  Allen,  75  Ala.  73..      905 
Pinkston  y.  Arrington,   98   Ala. 

489,  13  So.  561 551,  556, 

582,     586 
Pinner     y.     Knights,     6     Beav. 

(Eng.)   174  538 

Pinson    v.    Campbell,     124    Mo. 

App.  260,  101  S.  W.  621 

182,  224,     046 
Pioneer     Mining     Co.    v.     Dela- 
motte,    185    Fed.    752,    108    C. 

G.  A.  90    854 

Pioneer    Press    Co.    y.    Gossage, 

13  S.  D.  624,  84  N.  W.  195.  .      392 
Pipkin  V.  Haiicke,   15  Mo.  App. 

.373 639,     643 

Pippin  V.  State,  2  Sneed  (Tenn.) 

43    1099 

Pirie  v.  Harkness,  3  S.  D.   178, 

52  N.  W.  581    1055 

Pisani  v.  Attv.-Gen.  L.  R.  5  P. 

C.    (Eng.)   "517    283 

Pitcher  v.  Robertson,  66  Hun 
6;?2   mom.,    21    N.   Y.   S.    (i6.  . 

1040,   1078 
Pitkin  y.  Harris,  69  Mich.   133, 

37   N.  W.   61    391,  393 

I'itt  V.  Davidson,  37  N.  Y.  235, 
reversing    37    Barb.    97 

454,     468 
v.  Yalden,    4    Hiirr    (Knii.) 

2060    550,     552 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccv 


[References 

Pittman     v.     Carstonbrook,     1 1 
Cal.   App.    224.    104    Pac.    G9!) 

11,       17 
Pittsburgh    V.   O'Brien,   239    Pa. 

St.   GO,   86   Atl.   651    860 

Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.   Aus- 
tin, 141  Ky.  722,  1.33  S. 

W.    780    .\ 334,     339 

V.  Volkert,  58  Oliio  St.  302, 

50  N.  E.  924 653, 

654,   673,     734 
V,  Wakefield  Hardware  Co., 
143  N.  C.  54,  55  S.  E. 

422    636 

V.  Fish,  158  Ind.  525,  63  N. 

E.  454   850 

V.  Muncie  &  P.  Traction 
Co.,  166  Ind.  466,  9 
Ann.  Cas.  165,  77  N.  E. 

941    1190,  1200 

V.  Taber,  168  Ind.  419,  11 
Ann.  Cas.  808,  77  N.  E. 

741    856 

V.  Woolley,  12  Bush.  (Kv.) 
451     ..    235,    267,    709, 
711,  779,  780,  901,  902,     912 
Pixley  V.  Butts,  2  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

421    328,     434 

Place  V.  Hayward,  8  Civ.  Proc. 

(N."  Y.)    3.^2    1055 

V.  Havward,  117  N.  Y.  487, 

497,  23  N.  E.  25.  .274,     287 
Planet,  The,  1  Spr.  11,  19  Fed. 

Cas.  No.  11,204    1075 

Plank  V.  Hertha,  132  la.  213, 

109  N.  W.  732 233 

Piano  Mfg.   Co.   v.    Frawley,   68 

Wis.  577,  32  N.  W.  768  .'.194,     197 
Planters  Bank  v.  Hornberger,  4 
Coldw.    (Tenn.)    531,  567.-12, 
274,    281,   282,   283,   288,   289, 
724,   741,   742,   744,   745,   747, 

748.     982 
V.  Massev,  2  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

360, '362    354, 

362,  369,  372.  373,     521 
Planters',    etc.,    Mut.    F.    Assoc. 
V.  De  Loach,  113  Ga.  802, 

39  S.  E.  466   415 

Plath    V.    BraunsdorfT,    40    Wis. 

107    646 

Piatt  V.  Halen,  23  Wend.  (N. 

Y.  456  875 

V.  Jerome,  19  How.  384,  15 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  623... 

804,  1004,  1074 


are  to  pages.] 

Platz,  Re,  (Utah)  132  Pac.  390 
35,  1170,  1261.  1274,  1277, 

1297,  1302,  1315,  1319 
Plavford  v.  Hutchinson,  135  Pa. 

St.  426,  19  Atl.  1019 88S, 

894,  922,  931,  932,     982 
Pleasants  v.  Kortrecht,  5  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)     694 805,  1049 

Plitt,  Ex  p.,  2  Wall,  Jr.  (C.  C.) 
453,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,228.  . 

728,  783,  784,  1022 
Plunier  v.  Gregory,  L.  R.  18  Eq. 

(Eng.)    621,  43  L.  J.  Ch.  616     521 
Plummer    v.    Collins,    1    Boyce, 

281,  77   Atl.  750 632 

V.  Great  Northern  R.  Co., 
60  Wash.  214,  110  Pac. 
989,     31     L.R.A.(N.S.) 

1215 238,  736,    783, 

1016,  1041,  1045,  1059 
Plymat    v.  Brush,  46  Minn.  23, 

48  N.  W.  443 893,     905 

Plymouth  Gold  Min.  Co.  v.  U. 
is.  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  35  Mont. 
23,  10  Ann.  Cas.  951,  88  Pac. 

565    858 

Poage  V.  Smith,    101    111.    App. 

261    847 

Poillon  V.  Martin,  1   Sandf.  Ch. 

(N.  Y.)    569   ...275,  283,  285,     295 
Pokegama    Sugar    Pine    Lumber 
Co.  V.  Kalmath  River  Lumber 

etc.,  Co.,  86  Fed.  538 629,     630 

Pole   V.   Groves,   4   Jur.    (Eng.) 

339,  1  Scott  N.  R.  30 616 

Polin  V.  State,  14  Neb.  540,  16 

N.   W.   898 1107 

Pollard    V.    Rowland,    2    Blackf. 

(Ind.)    22 521 

Pollock,   Re,   69   App.   Div.   499, 

74  N.  Y.  S.  976 609,     623 

Polsley  v.   Anderson,   7   W.   Va. 

202,  23  Am.  Rep.  613 729, 

793,  794     795 
Poison  V.   Young,   37   la.   196.. 

282,  283,  745,     748 
Pomeranz    v.    Marcus.    40    Misc. 
442,  82  N.  Y.  S.  707,  appeal 
dismissed    86    App.    Div.    321, 

83  N.  Y.  S.  711 1076 

Pomeroy  v.  Prescott,  106  Me. 
401,  21  Ann.  Cas.  574,  76  Atl. 
898,  138  Am.  St.  Rep.  347 ..  . 

384,  386 
Pomery    v.    Abbet    of    Buckfast 

Year  Book,  21  Hen.  VI.  15     674 


CCVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Pond   V.    Lockwood,   8   Ala.   669 

401,     425 
Poole,  Ee,  L.  R.  4  C.  P.   (Eng.) 

350    1337 

V.  Belclia,  131  N.  Y.  200,  30 

N.   E.   53 1043,  1065 

V.  Gist,    4    McCord    L.     (S. 

C.)    259 503,  504,     520 

V.  Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co., 
58   Tex.   134,   9   Am.  & 

Eng.   R.  Cas.   197 523 

Pooley   V.    Whitmore,    10   Heisk 
(Tenn.)     629,    27    Am.    Rep. 

733    323 

Poor  V.  Guilford,  10  N,  Y.  273, 

61  Am.  Dec.  749 576 

Pope  V.  Armstrong,  3  Smedes  & 

M.   (Miss.)   214 990 

Poppleton    V.    Nelson,    10    Ore. 

437    265 

Porter,  Ex  p.,  3  Ohio  Dec.  333         37 
V.  Bergen,  54  N.  J.  Eq.  405, 

34  Atl.  1067    281, 

282,  283,     748 
V.  Briggs,    38    la.    1G6,    18 

Am.   Rep.   27 908 

V.  Bronson,    29     How.     Pr. 
(N.   Y.)    292,    19   Abb. 

Pr.    236 30 

V.  Elizalde,  125  Cal.  204,  57 

Pac.   899 371,   374, 

709,  711,     899 
•V.  Haley,    55    Miss.    66,    30 

Am.  Rep.  502 719 

V.  Hanson,   30  Ark.   591... 
985,    997,     1024,     1025, 

1026,  1051 
V.  Hermann,  8  Cal.  619.  .  .  19 
V.  Howes,  202  Mass.  54,  88 

N.  E.  445 292 

V.  Kniglit,  63   la.  365,  366, 

19  N.  W.  282   626,     859 

V.  Krucgel     (Tex.)     155    S. 

W.   174 515 

V.  Lane,   8  Johns.    (N.   Y.) 

357    1055 

V.  Parmlv,    39    Super.    Ct. 

(N.  'Y.)     219 286, 

609,  610,     741 
V.  Peckham,   44   Cal.   204.  . 

235,  276,     306 
V.   Iluckiiian,    38   N.   Y.   210 

870,     947 

V.   Smith,  65  Ala.   169 606 

V.  Vance,    14    Lea    ('I'cnn.) 

620,  630 520,  522,  1221 

V.  VVliitf,     5     Mack.-y,     (D. 

C.)    180    636 


are  to  pages.] 

Porter  v.  White,  127  U.  S.  2.15, 
8  S.  Ct.  1217,  32  U.  S. 

(L.    ed.)     112 981 

Porter   Tp.   Road,   Re,   1   Walk. 

(Pa.)    10   962 

Portis   V.   Ennis,   27   Tex.   574.. 

392,  393,     395 
Posey    V.    Mobile      County,     50 

Ala.  6   713,     714 

Post,  Re,  3  Edw.   (N.  Y.)   365..     287 
Re,   4   Silvernail   248.   7   N. 

Y.  S.  438   1259 

Re,  54  Hun  634  mem.,  7  N. 

Y.    S.    438 1261 

V.  Charleswortb,      66     Hun 
256,  21  N.  Y.  S.  168.  . 

440,  518,     538 
V.  Coleman,  9  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)     64    131,     132 

V.  Evarts,      56      Hun      641 
mem.,  31  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

123,  9  N.  Y.  S.  370 611 

V.  Haiijht,   1   How.  Pr.    (N. 

Y.'")    171    417 

V.  Mason,  91  N.  Y.  539,  43 

Am.  Rep.  689 280 

V.  Schneider,    59    Hun     (N. 
Y.)   610  mem.,  13  N.  Y. 

S.    396 218,     423 

Postal  Tel.   Cable  Co.  v.  Louis- 
ville N.  0.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  43  La 

Ann.  522,  9  So.  119 416,     426 

Postlethwaite,    Re,    35    Ch.    D. 

(Eng.)    722    214,     221 

Potter    V.    Ajax    Min.    Co.,    19 
Utah,   421,   57   Pac.   270.  .  . 

980,    1045,    1063,    1004,  1075 

V.  Ajax  Min.  Co.,  22  Utah. 

273,  61  Pac.  900.  .  .672, 

685,    724,     755,     756, 

760,  765,  793,  811,  812, 

869,     881 
V.  Mayo,  3  Me.  34.  14  Am. 

Dec.   211 804,   1030,  1040 

V.  Parsons,  14  la.  286.  .368, 

383,   401.   443,     494 
V.  Pavne,    31    Kan.    218,    1 

Pac.    617 128 

V.  Scale,  8  Cal.  217 «3S 

V.  Troy,   175   Fed.   128 535 

V.  Ware,    1    Cusb.    (Mass.) 

519     328,     332 

Potts  V.  Francis,  43  N.  C.  300 .  .      799 
V.  Gray,    60   Miss.   57 .  .  848,   1028 
Potwin  V.  i^laslier,  0  Wash.  460, 

37   Pac.  710 775 

Pouchcr  V.  I'.lanchard,  86  N.  Y. 

256    450,  532,     554 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCVll 


[References 

Poucher  v.  Xorman,   3   B.  &  C. 
744,  10  E.  C.  L.  219  .  .  . 

(iO.-),     G99 
Poulter  V.  Poulter,  193  111.  ()4], 

61   N.  E.  1  ().-)() 847 

Poupard   v.   Dumas,     105    Mich. 

,320,  (53  N.  W.  301    037 

Poussin's     Succession,     27     La. 

Ann.  296    480 

Powell    V.    Concord    First    Nat. 
]]ank,   71    Vt.    462.    45 

Atl.   103G 889,     894 

V.  Galveston,    etc.,    R.    Co., 
(Tex.)    78  S.  W.  975.. 

757,  1047,  1075,  1080 
V.  Kane,    2    Edvv.    (N.    Y.) 

450    538 

V.  Kane,    5    Paige    (N.    Y.) 

265    538 

V.  Lilly,   68   S.   W.   123,   24 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  193    907 

V.  Spaiilding,    3    C4.    Greene 

(la.)    443    440,     443 

V.  Stewart,  17  Ala.  719 561 

V.  Willamette      A'alley      R. 
Co..     15    Ore.    393,     15 

Pac.  663    301 

V.  VVoodbiirv,    85    Vt.    504, 

83   Atl.^541    638,     639 

Power   V.   Athens,    19   Hun    (N. 

Y.)    165    630,     852 

V.  Kent,    1    Cow.     (N.     Y.) 

211    470,  523,  1048 

Powers   V.    Braly,   75    Cal.   237, 

17   Pac.   197 469 

V.  Cory,  64  Me.  9 139,     141 

V.  Cray,  7  Ga.  206 596 

V.  Manning,  154  Mass.  370, 
28  N.  E.  290.  13  L.R.A. 

258    241,   242,   243, 

800,     878 
V.  Trenor,     3     Hun,     3,     5 
Thomp.    &    C.    231..  .. 

444,     518 
Pratt,    Re,    13     How.     Pr.     (N. 

Y.)     1.    3 56,    61,       76 

V.  Allen,    19    How.   Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    450    258 

V.  Bothe,    130   Fed.   670,   65 
C.    C.    A.    48,    12    Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  529 826 

V.  Brewster,  52   Conn.  65..      600 
V.  Conway,  148  Mo.  291,  49 
S.  W.  1028,  71  Am.  St. 
Rep.  602    479 


are  to  pages.] 

Pratt  V.  Kerms,  123  111.  App.  86 
725,  740,  742,  743,  745, 

755,  792,  805,     807 
V.  Putman,     13    Mass.    361 

251,  378,     503 
Premier,  Re,  Cycle  Mfg.  Co.,  70 
Conn.  '473,  39  Atl.  800 

307,     320 
Prentiss    v.    Anderson    Logging 

Co.,   16  British  Columbia  289     631 

V.  Kelly,   41    Me.    436    

435,     889 
V.  Livingston,  60   How.   Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   380.  .237,  254, 

261,  1087 
Presby  v.   Klickitat    County,    5 
Wash.  329,  31  Pac.  876  .  .  146, 

713,     714 
Prescott    V.    Pomeroy,    106    Me. 
401,  21  Ann.  Cas.  574, 
76    Atl.    898,    138    Am. 

St.  Rep.  347   384 

V.  Salthouse,  53  Cal.  221   .  . 

20,  256,  258.  259,     265 
V.  Tousey,  53  Super.  Ct.  56     533 
Presidio    County    v.    Shock,    24 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  622,  60  S.  W. 

287    207 

Prcsslev  v.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  171, 

4  N.  E.  682 427 

Preston  v.  Davis,   112  111.  App. 

636    477 

v.  Hill,  50  Cal.  43,  19  Am. 

Rep.  647    383,     400 

v.  Johnson.   65   la.    285.   21 

X.  W.  606   ;  .  .  .      908 

v.  Phelps,  9  La.  Ann.  488  .  .      384 
V.  Preston,  1  Doug.  (Mich.) 

292    543 

Prestwich  v.  Polev,  18  C.  B.  N. 
S.  806,  114  E.  C.  L.  806,  34  L. 
J.  C.  PL  189,  11  Jur.  N.  S. 
583.  12  L.  T.  N.  S.  390,  13  W. 

R.  753   393,     402 

Price,  E.x  p.,  2  Ves.   (Eng.)   407     720 
V.  Caperton,   1  Duv.    (Ky.) 

207    1107 

V.  Carney,     75     Ala.     546, 
552,   553    .  .  .    266,  653. 

654,  667,  673,     730 
V.  Chitterbuck,    1    F.    &    F. 

(Eng.)    379   115 

V.  Dearborn.   34   N.   H.   481     504 
V.  Grand    Rapids,    etc.,    R. 
Co.,  18  Ind.  137  .  .  308, 

312,  314,  315,     319 


ccvm 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Price  V.  Hagle,  171   Mich.   455, 

137  N.  W.  253   203 

V.  Hay,  132  111.  543,  24  N. 
E.  620,  affirming  29  111. 
App.  552,   31   111.   App. 

293 711,  888,  889, 

894,  899,  900 
V.  Hoerberle,    25    Mo.    App. 

201    245,  247,     803 

V.  Moses,    10    Rich.    L.    (S. 

C.)    454    329,     332 

V.  State,  35  Ohio  St.  601  .  . 

1102,  1112 
V.  Western  Loan  &  Savings 
Co.,    35    Utah    379,    19 
Ann.  Cas.  589,  100  Pac. 
677    .  .    239,    792,    793,     798 
V.  White,  70  Ga.  381   .  .370,     394 
Price  Mercantile   Co.   v.   Cuilla, 
100  Ark.   316,   141   S.  W.   194 

632,  636,     649 
Price's  Appeal,  IIG  Pa.  St.  410, 

9    Atl.    856    1022 

Priddv    V.    Mackenzie,    205    Mo. 

]8f,  103  S.  W.  968    267, 

520,     556 
Pride   v.    Smalley,   66   N.   J.   L. 

578,  52  Atl.  955   1056 

Priest    V.    Dodsworth,     235     111. 
613,   14  Ann.  Cas.  340.  85  N. 

E.    940    585,    592.     883 

Primlev  v.   Sliirk,   163   111.   389, 

45  X.  E.  247    772 

Prince  v.  Fuller,  34  Me.  122   .  .      990 
V.  Kennedy,     3     Cal.     App. 

404,  85  Pac.  859  .  .  877,     879 
V.  Kennedy,     3     Cal.     App. 

498,  86  Pac.  609    880 

Prinstein,    Re,    142    App.    Div. 

807,  127  N.  Y.  S.  629   .  .   1226,  1307 
Prior  V.  Kiso,  96  Mo.  303,  9  S. 

W.  898 245 

Pritcliard  v.  Henderson,  3  I'cnn. 

(Del.)    ]2S,  50  Atl.  217     330 
V.  Marvin,     33     App.     Div. 
639,    56    X.    Y.    S.    974, 
affirmed  158  X.  Y.  667, 

53  X.  E.  1131    609 

Pritchett,  Re,   122  App.   Div.  8, 

106  X.  Y.  S.  847  .  .  1249,  12.50,  1.303 
Proctor   V.    Old    Colony    K.    Co., 

154  .Mass.  251,  28  X.  K.   13..      .343 
Proctor  Coal  Co.  v.  Tyo.  123  Ky. 
381,  9f;   S.   \V.  512."  29    Ky.   L. 
Rc[).  804    .  .    1012,    1045.  'l062. 

l()(i(;,    KKu,    1068.   1080 


are  to  pages.] 

Propper  v.  Owens,  136  Ga.  787, 

72   S.  E.  242    1250 

Proprietors   of   Eight  Thousand 
Acre   Tract   v.    Bisho]),    2    Vt. 

231    418,  419,     422 

Prosecuting     Attorney,     Re,     2 
Ohio    Dec.     (Reprint)     402,    4 

West  L.  Month   147    1092 

1099,  1102,  1113 

Prospect  Ave.,  Re,  85  Hun  257, 

1  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  347,  32  X. 

Y.   S.    1013    ..    237,   254,   258,     262 

Proulx  v.   Stetson   &   Post  Mill 

Co.,  6  Wash.  478,  33  Pac.  1067 

886,     888 
Prouty  v.  Bullard,  77  la.  42,  41 

X.   W.  559    304 

V.  Eaton,  41  Barb.   (X.  Y.) 

409    185 

Provident   Sav.   Inst.   v.   White, 

115  Mass.  112   308,     309 

Prusa   v.   Everett.   86   Xeb.   456, 

125  X.  W.  1076 584,     601 

Prusiecki    v.    Ramzinski,    81    S. 

W.   549    129 

Prvor,  Re,  18  Kan.  72,  26  Am. 

Rep.  747    15,  1190,  1195, 

1197,     1198 
Pryse    v.    People's    Bldg.,    etc., 

Assoc,   (Ky.)   41  S.  W.  574  .  .      773 
Public  Accounts  Com'r  v.  Rose, 
1  Desaus   (S.  C.)   461   ..   250, 

252,     390 

Public  Works.  Re,  58  App.  Div. 

459,  69  X.  Y.  S.  413.  modified 

167   X.  Y.  501,  60  X.  E.  781     264 

Publishers'  Printing  Co.  v.  Gil- 

lin     Printing     Co.,     16 

Misc.  558,  25  Civ.  Pro. 

327.  38  X.  Y.  S.  784.  . 

805,  1040 

V.  Gillin    Printing    Co.,    16 

Misc.  558,   38   X.  Y.  S. 

784,  reversing  15  Misc. 

464,    37    N.    Y.    S.    198  1075 

Puett  V.   Beard,  86  Ind.  172,  44 

Am.  Rep.  280   1054 

Pugli   V.   liovd,  38   Miss.   326    .  . 

1031,  1073 
V.  Dorsev,    8    Smcdcs   &   M. 

(.Miss.)  379  872 

I^ilford's  Appeal,  48   Conn.  247 

15(1,   161,     206 

I'lillcn   V.    I'ullcii.    17    .\tl.   310.  .       131 

V.   Male,    l.")ti    S.    W  .   !i;;.-)    .  .       132 

i'ulliaiii    V.    liootli.    21    .\r:<.    -121      S69 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCIX 


[References 

Pulver  V.  Harris,  G2   Barb.    ( N. 

Y.)   50U   737,   107a 

V.  Harris,  52  N.  Y.  73   .... 

1030,    10:n,    104G,   1048,   1057 
Purcell  V.  Enriglit,  31  N.  J.  Eq. 

74    304 

V.  Lincoln,    1    Sprague   230, 
20    Fed.    Cas.    No.    11.- 

471   804,  1039 

Purdv  V.  Wallace,  47  Misc.  163, 

93  'X.  Y.  S.  GOS   274 

Purvcs  V.   Landell,    12   CI.  &   F. 

(Eng.)   91    550 

Purvis    V.    Gray,    39    How.    Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    1   474 

Putnam  v.  Day,  22  Wall.  20.  GO, 
22   U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    704 

455,     531 
V.  Stalker,   50   Ore.  210,  91 

Pac.  3G3    644,     649 

V.  Tennyson,  50  Ind.  456  .  .    1034 
V.  Van    Buren,    7    How.   Pr. 

(X.  Y.)    31    245 

Pvke,  Ex  p.,  G  B.  &  S.  703,  118 

'E.   C.  L.   703    1334 

Pyle  V.  Cravens,  4  Litt.    (Ky.) 
"21    716 


Q 

Quakertown,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Guarantors  Liability  Indemni- 
ty Co.,  206  Pa.  St.  350,  55 
Atl.  1033   ..   1016,  1022,  1035, 

1037.  1038 
Quarles  v.  Porter,   12  Mo.  76..      412 
y.  Waldron,  20  Ala.  217   .  .      328 
Quarrier,  Ex  p.  2  W.  Va.  569 .  . 

80,    83,  1180 
Ex  p.,  4  W.  Va.  210   .  .   83,  1336 
Quesnel  v.  Mussy,   1   Dall.   449, 

1   U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    218    408 

Quigley    y.    Thomp.son,    53    Ind. 

317  ".  .  655,  65G,  657,  GGl,  670,     674 
Quincy  v.  Foot,  1  Barb.  Ch.   (N. 

Y.)"496   472 

Quinlan   y.    Birge,   43   Hun   483, 

7  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  147    ..    996,  1040 
Quinn  v.  Lloyd,  5  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S. 

(X.    Y.)    281    498 

v.  Lloyd,   3G   How.   Pr.    (X. 

Y.)  378.  .258,  295,  397,  410 
V.  Van  Pelt.  56  X.  Y.  417.  .  589 
V.  Van   Pelt,   36  Super.  Ct. 

(X.  Y.)  279  .  .308,  949,     950 


are  to  pages.] 

Quint  v.  Opliir  Silver  Min.  Co., 
4  Xev.  304    ...    787,  788,  789, 

792,  793,     808 


R 


Rabasse's     Succession,     51     La. 

Ann.  590,   25    So.   32G    934 

Raby,    Re,    29    App.    Diy.    225, 
51  X.  Y.  S.  552   .  .  595, 

59G,   603,  619 
Re,  25  Misc.  240,  55  X.  Y. 

S.  87   781,     785 

Rachels  y.  Doniphan  Lumber 
Co.,    98    Ark.   529,    136   S.    W. 

658    945,  1083 

Radcliffe  v.  Hollvfield,  216  Pa. 
St.   367,   65   Atl.   789    .  .    638, 

641,     642 
Rader  y.  Maddox,  150  U.  S.  128, 
14   S.   Ct.  46,   37   U.   S. 
(L.    ed.)     1025,    revers- 
ing   9    Mont.    126,    22 

Pac.  386    377 

y.  Snyder,  3  W.  Va.  413   .  . 

27,     110 
Radford,  Re,   159  Mich.  91,   123 
X.   W.   546.    10   Detroit 
Leg.    X".    757     ..     12S3, 

1324,  1329 

Re.    168   Mich.   474,    134   X. 

W.   472    .  .    1168.    1173, 

1206,   1211,   1217,   1227, 

1259,   1260.  1261,  12G2,  1264 

Radley  v.  Gaylor.  98  App.  Div. 

158'  90  X.  "y.   S.  758    ..    897,  1060 

Raefle  v.  Moore,  58  Ga.  94    154 

Rallies  v.  J.  Thompson  &  Sons 
Mfg.  Co.,  137  Wis.  506,  119 
X.    W.   289,   23   L.R.A.(X.S.) 

296    1200 

Rahm  y.  State,  30  Tex.  App.  310, 
17  S.  W.  416,  28  Am.  St.  Rep. 

911    176 

Railey   v.   Baglcy,    19   La.   Ann. 

172    ./. 391,     392 

y.  Davis.    (Tex.)    128  S.  W. 

434 888,     962 

Railroad    Tax    Cases,    136    Fed. 

233 1146,  1158 

Railsback    v.    Leonard,    118    La. 

916,  43  So.  548    296,     305 

Raley  v.  Hancock.    (Tex.)    77  S. 

W.    658    987.   1019 

v.  Smith,    (Tex.)    73   S.   W. 

54    702.  796,     956 


OCX 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Kamage  v.  Little john,  17  Wash. 
3S6,  49  Pae.  480    .  .    884,  891, 

919,  921 
Rambaut    v.    Irving   Nat.    Bank, 
42  App.  Div.  143,  58  N.  Y.  S. 

lOof)    859 

Raming  v.   ^Metropolitan   St.   R. 

Co.,  157  Mo.  477,  57  S.  W.  2(58     401 
Ramsey,   Re,  24   S.   D.  260,   123 

X.  W.  726  272,  1214, 

1298,  1300 
Re,  26  S.  D.  352,  128  N.  W. 

176  1332,  1334 

V.  Arrott,  64  Tex.  320   ....      637 
V.  Erie  R.  Co.,  8  Abb.  Pr. 

(N.   S.)    174    682 

V.  Gould,  57  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
398,    39    How.    Pr.    62 

681,     682 
V.  Trent,  10  B.  Mon.  (Kv.) 

336    667,     669 

Randall,   Ex    p.,    149    Ala.    640, 

42  So.  870    ..311,  312,  1040 
Re,   11   Allen    (Mass.)    472 

1329,  1330 
Re,    122    App.    Div.    1,    100 
N.  Y.  943,  aflirmed,  196 
N.    Y.    569,    90    N.    E. 

1165    1210,  1317 

Re,   159   Fed.   298,   20  Am. 

'Bankr.   Rep.    305    254 

V.  Archer,  5  Fla.  438.. 766, 

772,  956,  1021 
V.  Baird,  66  Mich.  312,  33 

N.  W.   506    678 

V.  Brigham,  7  Wall.  523, 
535,  19   U.   S.    (L.  ed.) 

285    32,  1287.  1289 

V.  Dwight,  5  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

889     894 

V.  Hamilton,  45  La.  Ann. 
1184,     14    So.    73,    22 

L.R.A.   649    533 

V.  Kingsland,   53   How.   Pr. 

(N.    Y.)    512    783,     786 

■v,  Packard,  1  Misc.  344,  20 
N.  Y.  S.  716,  aflirmed 
142  N.  Y.  47,  36  X.  K. 

823    781,   786,   788, 

78!t,  790,  791,  886,  919, 

942,     962 
V.  State,  16  Wis.  340.  .889,     893 
V.  Van  Wagenen,  115  N.  Y. 
.527.  22   N.   K.   361,   17 
Civ.  Prnc.  403,  12  Am. 

St.  Rci>.  82S    877, 

975,    1014,    1031 


are  to  pages.] 

Randel.  Re,  158  X.  Y.  216.  52  X. 

E.  1106 1307,  1312 

V.  Vanderbilt,  75  App.  Div. 
313,  78  N.  Y.  8.  124 
allirmed  180  X.  Y.  547, 

73  X.  E.  1131 811,  1051 

Randolph,  Ex  p.,  2  Brock.  461. 

20  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  11,558     148 
V.  Biiilders,      etc..      Supply 
Co.,    106   Ala.   501,    17 

So.  721 854 

V.  Carroll,  27  La.  Ann.  467 

934,   941 
V.  Quidnick    Co.,    23    Fed. 

278    171.     176 

V.  Randolph,  34  Tex.  181 

839,  985 
V.  St.  Joseph,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
118  Mo.  App.  460,  94 
S.  W.  309  .  .881,  895.  917 
V.  Scruggs,  190  U.  S.  533, 
23  S.  Ct.  710,  47  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  1165.  10  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  1 819 

Ransom  v.  Cothran.  6  Smedes  & 

M.    (Miss.)    167    ..592,     593 
V.  Cutting.   188  X.  Y.  447, 
81  X.  E.  324,  affirming 
112   App.   Div.   150,  98 
X.  Y.  S.  282. .081,  683, 

739,    746,    765,    980.  1082 

V.  Jones,  1  Scam.  (111.)  291     415 

V.  Ransom,    147    App.   Div. 

835,  133  X.  Y.  S.  173, 

reversing   70   Misc.   30, 

127  X.  Y.  S.  1027.. 738, 

742,   743,     745 
V.  Sutherland,      46      Mich. 

489,  9  X.  W.  530 250 

Rapp,  Re,   77  Xeb.  674,  110  X. 

W.  661   764,     776 

Rarrick  v.  Clay,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

360    .' 902 

Rasclrs    Estate,    28    Civ.    Proc. 
98.  26  Misc.  459,  55  N.  Y.  S. 

434    541 

Rasquin  v.  Knickerbocker  Stage 
Co.,  21  How.  Pr.   (X.  Y.)  293, 

12   Abb.   Pr.    324    1078 

Rastrifk  v.  Beckwith.  2  Dow).  & 

I,.     (Kng.)     624    114 

l!:isiirc  V.  Mc(!ratli.  23  Kan.  598     379 
lliilclid'    V.     liainl,    14    Tex.    43 

371.  372.     710 
Ratlibone  v.  Blackford,  1  Cain(-s 

(N.   Y.)    343    471 


TACLK    OF    CASES, 


CCXl 


[References 

Rathbun  v.  Ingals,  7  Wend.  (N. 

Y.)    320    5!)S,  509,     COl 

Ratican  v.  Union  Depot  Co.,  80 

Mo.  App.  528    :i5tj,     3.18 

Raub  V.  Otterback,  80  Va.  (J45, 

16  S.  E.  933   443 

Ravenga  v.  Mackintosh,  2  B.  & 

C.  693,  9  E.  C.  L.  225 631,     638 

Raver  v.  Webster,  3  la.  502,  Gii 

Am.   Dec.   96    626,     627 

Rawson    v.     Porter,     9     Greenl. 

(Me.)    119    967 

Ray  V.  Adden,  50   N.  11.   82,  9 

Am.  Rep.  175  907 

V.  James,   (Ky.)    112  S.  W. 

641     1148 

V.  Lobdell,  213  111.  389,  72 
N.    E.    1076,    affirming 

110  111.  App.  230    230 

V.  Pease,  97  Ga.  618,  25  S. 

E.  360   777 

Raymond  v.  Green,  12  Neb.  215 
10  N.  W.  709,  41  Am. 

Rep.  763   859 

V.  People,  2  Colo.  App.  329, 

30  Pac.  504 1117 

Re ,  see  name  of  party. 

Re,  1  Hun    (N.  Y.  321.'...    1308 

Re,  86  N.  Y.  563   1216. 

1276,  1277,  1286,  1295, 
1296,  1307,  1311,  1325, 

1326,  1336 
Re,  2  B.  &  Ad.  766,  22  E. 
C.  L.  180,  9  L.  J.  K.  B. 

321   1250 

Re,  5  B.  &  Ad.  1088,  27  E. 

C.  L.  275    1268 

Rea  V.  Trotter,  26  Gratt.   (Va.) 

585      328 

Read     v.     Bostick,     6     Humph. 

(Tenn.)    321    838, 

1018,    1019,  1037 
V.  Dupper,  6  T.  R.    (Eng.) 

361    792,  811,  978,  1060 

V.  French,    28    N.    Y.    285 

410,  457,  498,     508 
V.  Joselyn,   Sheld.    (N.   Y.) 

60     992 

V.  Patterson,         11         Lea 

(Tenn.)     430     570, 

571,   577,   592,     595 
Real  Estate  Invest.  Co.  v.   Met- 
ropolitan   Bldg.    Soc,    3    Ont. 

476     268 

Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  v.  T'niou 
Trust  Co.,  102  Md.  41, 

61  Atl.  228   ..384,  396,     409 


are  to  pages.] 

Real  Etale  Trust  Co.  v.  Wil- 
mington, etc..  Electric 
K.   Co.,    (Del.)    77    Atl. 

756    330 

Ream  v.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank, 
1   Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  351,  2  Ohio 

Cir.  Ct.  43    493 

Reamer's  Appeal,  18  Pa.  St.  510     508 
Reardon  v.  Peirce,  1  Chest.  Co. 

Rep.     (Pa.)     71 1057 

Reavely  v.  Harris,  145  111.  App. 
545,  affirmed  239  111.  526,  88 

N.   E.   238    221,   331,     333 

Reavev    v.   Clark,   56    Hun    641 
mem.,    18    Civ.    Proc.    272,    9 

N.   Y.   S.   216    959,  1003 

Reavis  v.  Cowell,  56  Cal.  588..      132 
Record  v.   Central  Pac.   R.   Co., 

15  Nev.  160    632 

Redecker  v.  Bovven,  15  R.  I.  52, 

23  Atl.   62    847 

Redtield  v.  U.  S.,  27  Ct.  CI.  473     259 
Redmond.  Re,  54  App.  Div.  454, 

66   N.   Y.   S.   782    614 

Reece  v.  Kvle,  49  Ohio  St.  475, 
3fN.  E.  747,  16  L.R.A. 

723    6,53,   655,  6^)6, 

659,  661,  662,  663.  604, 

670,  672,   673,     729 

V.  Reece,  06  N.  C.  377   431 

v.  Righy,   4   B.  &  Aid.  202, 
6  E.  C.  L.  451    .  .    551, 

565,     566 
Reed  v.   Benzine-ated  Soap   Co., 
72    N.   J.    Eq.    622,    65 
Atl.  1008   . .  .   539,  540,     541 
V.  Catlin,    49    Wis.    686,    6 

N.  W.  326   774,     775 

V.  Curry,  35  111.  536  .  .  415,     419 
v.  Hayward,    82    App.    Div. 
416,  81  N.  Y.  S.  60S   . . 

597,  601,     603 
V.  Jones,  84  Ga.  380,  11  S. 

E.  401    685 

v.  Mellor,   5   Mo.   App.   567 

741,     826 
V.  New     York     Nat.     Exch. 
Bank,  230  111.  50,  82  N. 

E.  341    857 

V.  Pratt,    2    Hill     (N.    Y.) 

64    444,     446 

V.  Reed,    74    S.   W.    207,   24 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  2438.  .930,     942 
V.  Reed,   19   S.   C,   548    ... 

269,  465,     467 
V.  Smith,  2  Ind.  160  .  .  154,     196 


ccxn 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


I  References 

Reed    v.    State,    2    Okla.    dim. 
589,     103    Pac.     1042.. 

1107.   lies,   1116 
V.  Worthinjiton,  9  W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)    192   775 

Reeder   v.   Lockwood,     30    ^lisc. 

531,  62  N.  Y.  S.  713    457 

Reese,  Re,  41  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  72 

1214,  1248 
V.  Clmrch  of  the  Messiah,  1 

W.  X.  C.   (Pa.)   416   ..      437 
V.  Resburgli,    54    App.    Div. 
378,  66  N.  Y.  S.  633  .  . 

711,     771 
Reeves  v.  Burton,  6  Mart.  N.  S. 

(La.)   283   329 

V.  Templar,   2   Jur.    (Eng.) 

137    142 

Reg  V.  Cox,  14  Q.  B.  D.  153.  .  .      213 
V.  Doutre,      9      App.      ('as. 
(Eng.)  745  ..  093,  695, 

699,  724,     869 
V.  Ellis,  32  N.  Bruns.  561, 

713    851 

V.  Fogarty,  5  Cox  C.  C.  161     713 
V.  Hankins,  2  C.  &  K.  823, 

61  E.  C.  L.  823   198 

V.  Helston,  10  Mod.   (Eng.) 

202    489 

V.  Pattee,    5    Ont.    Pr.    292  1133 
V.  Prosser,  11  Beav.   (Eng.) 
306,  18  L.  J.  Ch.  35,  13 

Jur.  71    1132.  1133 

V.  Steadman,    12   N.   Bruns. 

368    131 

V.  Wilkinson,  41  U.  C.  Q.  B. 

42    851 

Regan,    Re,   29   Misc.   527,    7   N. 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  165,  61  N. 

Y.  S.  1074   1060 

Re,  167  N.  Y.  338,  60  N.  E. 
658,  reversing  58  App. 
Div.  1,  31  Civ.  Proc. 
387,  68  N.  Y.  S.  527   .  . 

992,  10.30 
Register  N'ewspajx'r  Co.  v.  Wor- 
ten,  ins.  W.  693,  33   Ky.  L. 

Rep.  S40    ]33,'l38,     139 

Reioli   v.   Cocliran,   102  N.   Y.  S. 

827,    ufrirnu'd    139    App.    Div. 

931,    124    N.    Y.   S.    1127.    105 

App.  Div.  542,  94  X.  Y.  S.  404     372 

ReickliofT  v.   Brcelit,  51    la.  (i33. 

2   N.  \V.  522    29S,     302 

Kcid    v.    (lav.    134    Cal.    207.    (Hi 

Tar.    262    85(i 


are  to  pages.] 

Reid  v.  Colcock.  1  Xott  &  II. 
(S.  C.)  592,  9  Am.  Dec. 

729    329 

v.  Dickinson,  37  Iowa,  'yii .  . 

380.  397,  400,  401.  416 
V.  Punch,  2  Ky.  L.  Rep.  62  1026 
v.  Warren  Imp.  Co.,  17  Cal. 

App.  746,  121  Pac.  694     933 
Reifschneider,  Re,  60  App.  Div. 
478,  69  X.  Y.  S.  1069  .  .   1213, 

1316,     1320 
Reigal    v.    Wood,    1    Johns.    Ch. 

(X.  Y.)   402 294,     515 

Reigi  v.  Phelps,  4  X.  D.  272,  60 

X.  W.  402   274 

Reilly  v.  Cavanaugh,  29  Ind.  435 

548,  553,  570 
V.  Cavanaugh,  32  Ind.  214 

1218,  1292,  1300,  1305,  1314 
V.  Flynn,  10  Daly  (X.  Y.) 

462  544 

V.  Provost,     98     App.     Div. 
208,  90  X.  Y.  S.  591 .  . 

2S0,     603 
v.  Tullis,   10  Daly    (X.  Y.) 

283  .' 544 

Reinhart  v.  Johnson,  62  la.  155, 

17  X.  W.  452  ... 187 

Reinhart  Grocery  Co.  v.  Powell, 
158  Mo.  App.' 458,  138  S.  W. 

909   377,     393 

Reinholdt     v.     Alberti,     1     Bin. 

(Pa.)    4S9 453 

Reisterer  v.  Carpenter,  124  Ind. 

30,  24  X.  E.  371    784 

Relf  v.  Ives,  10  La.  509    302 

Remington  v.  Eastern  R.  Co., 
109  Wis.  154.  84  X.  W. 
898,    85   X.   W.    321    .  . 

322,    702,   831,   942,     963 
V.  Willard,   15  Wis.  583    ..      775 
Remmers   v.    ]Merchants'-I>aclede 
Xat.   Bank,   173   Fed.   484.  97 
C.   C.   A.  490,   23   Am.   Bankr. 

Rep.   7S    628 

Renfrew  v.  (xoodfellow,  162  Mo. 

App.  333.   141   S.  W.   1153    ..      344 
Ren  fro  v.   State,   42   Tex.   Crim. 

393.   56  S.   W.   1013    201 

Rcnick  V.  Ludington,  16  W.  Va. 

378,    391     ....    978.    900,    995, 

997.     1002,    1004,    1030.    1048,   105O 

IJeiikcrt  V.  Title  Cuaranty  Trust 

Co..    1(12   Mo.   Aj)p.  267.   76  S. 

W.    64  1     5.50,   557.     585 

Kriio    Bar   .'\.ssoc.  v.  Scoular,   .34 

.\ev.  313,  123  Pac.  13   ..    12;!H,    1256 


TAiiLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXlll 


[rvcfereiiccs 

Rcnsiiaw    v.    Richards,    30    La. 

Ann.  30S  773,     775 

Kenwick  v.  New  Central  Coal 
Co.,  55  Super.  Ct.  444,  14  Civ. 
Proc.   .114,   14  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

758 540 

Replogle  V.  Frotliingham,  IG  Pa. 

Super.  Ct.  374    633,  ()37, 

041,     043 
Rci)p  V.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App.  107, 
•19  N.  E.  441   .  .   378,  383,  390, 

395,     519 
Respass      v.      Morton,      Hardin 

(Ky.)    220,  234    537 

Rcspublica    v.    Fislier,    1    Yeates 

(Pa.)    350    114.     116 

Rester   v.   Powell,    120    La.    400, 

45    So.    372     207 

Reumping  v.  V^Hiarton,  56  Neb. 
536,   76  N.  W.   1076    .  .  .    548, 

552,  558,     585 
Revell  V.  People,  177  111.  408,  52 
N.  E.  1052,  69  Am.  St. 
Rop.  257.  43  L.R.A.  790  1151 
V.  Smith,  25  Okla.  508,  100 

Pac.   863    858 

Reves  v.  Hyde.  14  Dalv  431, 
13  Civ.  Proc.  323,  14  N."  Y.  St. 

Rep.  689   888,     942 

Revill  V.  Pettit,  3   Mete.    (Ky.) 

314    523,    524.     525 

Revis  V.  Smith,  IS  C.  B.  126, 
86  E.  C.  L.  126,  2  Jur.  N.  S. 
614,  25  L.  J.  C.  PL  195,  4  W. 

R.  506    535 

Rex  V.  ,  3  Mod.   (Eng.) 

97    674 

V.  Austen,   9    Price    (Eng.) 

142    1132 

V.  Bach,     9     Price     (Eng.) 

349    1168 

V.  Dixon,    3    Burr.     (Eng.) 

1687    198 

V.  Goaler,  2  Ken.  K.  B.  pt. 

1    (Eng.)    421    130 

V.  Greenwood.      1      \V.     Bl. 

(Eng.)     222    1332 

V.  Hill,  7  Price   (Eng.)   036     491 
V.  Hunter,  4  C.  &  P.  128,  19 

E.   C.  L.  306    198 

V.  Lake,      Freem.      K.      B. 

(Eng.)    14.  2   Vent.   28     139 
V.  Marsden.  3  Burr.   (Eng.) 

1812    1132 

V.  Phillips,  3  Burr.    (Eng.) 

1564,  4  Burr.  2089 1115 


are  to  pages.] 

Rex  V.  ShcrilT,  1   Chit.  714  note, 

18  E.  (  .  L.  213  note   .  .      127 
V.  Soutlicrton.         0         I'-ast 

(Eng.)    127 1278 

V.  Wallace,  3  T.  R.    (Eng.) 

403    130 

V.  \\  ilkes,    4    Burr.    (Eng.) 
2527,   2551,   2554,   2570 

1132,  1133 
V.  Wright,   8   T.   R.    (Eng.) 

2i)a     153 

V.  Upper   Boddington,   8 
Dowl.  &  R.  726,  16  E. 

C.  L.  348  198 

Rexford  v.  Comstock,  3  N.  Y.  S. 

870    963 

Reynolds  v.  Cavanagh,  139  Mich. 
387,  102  N.  W.  986,  11 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  901    .  . 

574,  602,     607 
V.  Clark    County,    162    Mo. 
680,  63  S.  W.  382.-793, 

804,     806 
V.  Fleming,  30  Kan.  106,  1 
Pac.    61,    46    Am.    Rep. 
86    ...    416,    432,    442, 

443,     518 
V,  Holland,   46    Wash.   537, 

90  Pac.  048 137 

V.  Ingersoll,     11     Smedes  & 
M.  (Miss.)  249,  49  Am. 

Dec.   57    509 

V.  Kaplan,  3  App.  Div.  420, 

38  N.  Y.  S.  704 263 

V.  McMillan,   63   111.   46    .  . 

847,     931 
v.  Parkes,  2  Dem.    (N.  Y.) 

399    629 

V.  Reynolds,  67   Cal.   176,  7 

Pac.   480    907 

V.  Reynolds,  10  Neb.  574,  7 

N.  W.  322    1075,  1077 

V,  Rowlev,     3     Rob.     (La.) 

201,^38    Am.    Dec.    233     202 
V.  Sorosis     Fruit     Co.,     133 
Cal.  025,  06  Pac.  21    .  . 

723,  744,  700,  707.     918 
Rhinehart  v.  New  Madrid  Bank- 
ing Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  381,   73 

S.  W.  315   364,     500 

Rhines  v.  Evans,  00  Pa.  St.  192, 
194,  195,  5  Am.  Rep.  305.  .522, 

589,  594,     605 
Rhodes  v.  Walsh,  55  Minn.  542, 

57   N.  W.  212,  23  L.R.A.  632       10 
Rhutasel  v.  Rule,  97  la.  20,  05 
N.  W.  1013 383,  458,     494 


CCXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 


Rice  V.   Bamberg,  59   S.  C.  498, 

38   S.   E.   209    585 

V.  Bennett,    (S.  D.)    137  N. 

W.  359   ..272.  4G5,  466,     407 
V.  Com.,  18  B.  Mon.    (Kv.) 

472     1168,     1235, 

1281,  1326 
V,  Coolidge,   121  Mass.  393, 

23  Am.  Rep.  279   ..118,     123 

V.  Cribb,  12  Wis.  179  773 

V.  Day,  33  Neb.  204,  49  N. 

W.  1128 1054 

V.  Garnliart,  35  Wis.  282   . 

1031,  1043,  1047,  1056 
V.  Hunt,  12  Heisk.   (Tenn.) 

344    

V.  Melendy,  41  Iowa,  395  . . 
V.  O'Keefe,  6  Heisk. 

(Tenn.)    638    236, 

412, 
V.  Rice,   14   B.  Mon.    (Ky.) 

417    

V.  Shecherd,  12  C.  B.  N.  S. 

332,    104   E.    C.    L.   332 

V.  Troup,   62   Miss.    186    .  . 

384,  396.  497, 

V.  Wilkins,  21  Me.  .558 

Richards  v.  Moore,  60  Hun  577 

mem.,  14  N.  Y.  S.  851 
V.  Richards,    64   Misc.    285, 

119  N.  Y.  S.  81   

V.  Skiff,  8  Ohio  St.  586..  . 
V.  State.  82  Wis.  172,  51  N. 

W.  652 

V.  Washburn,   14  App.  Div. 

237,  43  N.  Y.  S.  615   .. 

887,  889, 

V.  Wasliburn,  28  App.  Div. 

109,    50    N.    Y.    S.    885, 

affirmed  163  N.  Y.  585, 

57  N.  E.  1123 

Ricliardson.  Re,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

299    45,    46       56 

V.  lirookivn    City,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  7  Hun  "(N.  Y.)    69   1065 
V.  Brooklyn    City,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,   22    How.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    368    16,  39,       59 

V.  Brooklyn    City,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,    24    How.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)     321.    15    Abb.    Pr. 

342  note 8()2.     988 

V.   Ha;;an,    9     Ky.     L.     Hep. 

196    (abstract)    ..    2S0,     281 
V.   Peto,    1    M.  &   (I.   89(1.   39 

}•;.    ('.    L.    701,   9    Dowl. 

73    403 


480 
527 


507 


183 


908 


499 
390 


185 


218 
417 


1103 


960 


910 


Richardson    v.    Richardson,    100 
Mich.    364,    59    N.    W. 
178—..  .519,   520,    521.     950 
V.  Rowland,    40    Conn.    505 

662,  663,     913 
V.  Sheehan.     46     HI.     App. 
528,  147  111.  366,  35  N. 

E.  619    133 

V.  Talbot,     2     Bibb     (Ky.) 

382    250 

V.  Virtue,   2   Hun    (N.   Y.) 

208   633.     637 

Richardson   Drug   Co.   v.   Duna- 
gan,  8  Colo.  App.  308,  40  Pac. 

227    383 

Richie     v.     Gilbert,     1      Taunt. 

(Eng.)    164  note  a  ...      127 
y.  Taylor,      44      Hun      627 
mem.,  8  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

832    536 

Richland    County   y.    Millard,   9 

111.  App.   396^ 732 

Richmond   Enquirer  Co.  v.  Rob- 
inson, 24  Gratt.   (Va.)   548   ..      562 
Rickel  y.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 
112  la.  148,  83  N.  W.  957    .  . 

664,  725,  728,  738,  808,     811 
Ricker,    Re,    66    N.   H.    207,    29 
Atl.    559,    24    L.R.A.    740     .  . 

14,  16,  45,       46 
Ricketson    y.     Lorres,    23     Cal. 

636    415,     510 

Rickey  v.  Christie,  40  Hun    (N. 

Y.)   278   417 

Riddle    y.    Hanna,    25    Ala.    484 

510,     511 
V.  Poorman,    3    Pen.    &    W. 

( Pa. )  224  .  .  522,  549,  570 
Riddles  v.  Aiken,  29  Mo.  453  .  .  225 
Rider  y.  Ocean  Ins.  Co.,  20  Pick. 

(Ma.ss.)   259    1054 

Ridge  V.  Alter,  14  La.  Ann.  880     440 
Ridley  y.  Tiplady,  20  Beay.  44, 
24  L.  J.  Ch.  207.  1  Jur.  N.  S. 

249,  3  W.  R.  276    537 

Riebold    V.    Hartzell,    23    N.    D. 

204,  136  N.  W.  247    239,     371 

Riegi  V.  Phelps,  4  N.  D.  272,  60 

X.    W.  402    519,  574,     576 

Riehl  y.  Levy.  43  Misc.  59,  86 
\.  Y.  S.  404.  45  Misc.  425, 

90  X.  Y.  S.  441  966 

Riiscr.  Re.  137  App.  Diy.  177, 

121  X.  V.  1070  ..  254.  259.  1007 
Rigden  V.  .lordaii,  81  Ga.  OOS.  7 
S.  E.  857  050 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXV 


[References 

Riggs    V.    Denniston,    3    Jolins. 
Cas.    (N.  Y.)    198,  2  Am.  Dec. 

145    133,     135 

Eiley  v.  Boston  El.  R.  Co..   195 
Mass.    318,    81    N.    E.    197    .  . 

388,     405 

V.  Hirst,  2  Pa.  St.  340 529 

V.  Joiinston,  13  Ga.  2G0    .  . 

154,     330 
V.  O'Kelly   (Mo.)   157  S.  W. 

5G6   417,     426 

Rilling    V.    Thompson,    12    Busli 

(Ky.)    310    773 

Rind  V.  Hunsickcr,  24  La.  Ann. 

571    1076 

Ring    V.    Charles    Vogel    Paint, 
etc.,   Co.,   46   Mo.   App. 

374    417,  461,     510 

V.  Wheeler,  7  Cow.   (N.  Y.) 

725    119 

Ringrose    v.    Ringrose,    10    Ont. 
Pr.  299,  affirming  10  Ont.  Pr. 

596    909 

Rinker  v.  Laner,   13  Idaho  163, 

88   Pac.   1057    777 

Rintelen,  Re,  77  App.  Div.  142, 

78  N.  Y.  S.   1092    290 

Riordan  v.  Britton,  69  Tex.  198, 

7  S.  W.  50,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  37     267 
Ripley  v.  Bull,  19   Conn.  53    .  . 

735.  736,   1056 
Risley  v.  Fellows,  10  III.  531   .  . 

244,     246 
Ritchie  v.  State,  42  Wash.  653, 

85  Pac.  417 1160 

Ritz   V.   Rea,    (la.)    135   N.   W. 

645    497 

Rives  V.  Patty,  74  I\Iiss.  381,  20 
So.  862,  60  Am.  St.  Rep.  510 

845,     889 
Rivet     V.     George     M.     Murrell 
Planting,    etc.,    Co.,    121    La. 
201,  46  So.  210,   126  Am.  St. 

Rep.  320    857 

Roach  V.  Brannon,  57  Miss.  490     859 
Roake  v.  Palmer.  119  App.  Div. 
64,   103  N.  Y.  S.   863    . .    237, 

239,  254,  793,  797,     910 

Robb,  Re,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  644 612 

V.  Roelker.  66  Fed.  23   375 

V.  Smith,    4    111.    47    .  .    24, 

58,  104,     110 
V.  Vos,  155  U.  S.  13,  15  S. 
Ct.  4,  39  U.  S.   (L.  ed.) 

52    377.  439,  440,     517 

Robbins,    Ex   p.,    63    N.    C.    309 

538,  545,  1205 


are  to  pages.] 

Robbins,   Re.   61    Misc.   114,   112 

N.   Y.  S.  1032,  affirmed 

1.32  App.  Div.  905,  116 

N.  Y.  S.  1146    238, 

245,  983,  1010,  1013,  1015 
Re,  189  N.  Y.  422,  82  N.  E. 

501,  reversing  119  App. 

Div.  888,  105  N.  Y.  S. 

1140  45.3: 

v.  Alexander,    11    How.    Pr. 

(X.   Y.)    100    860,     861 

V.  Fennell,    11    Q.    B.    248, 

63  E.  C.  L.  248    576 

V.  Harvev,   5    Conn.   335    .  . 

923,  928,  929,  930,     931 
Heath,  11  Q.  B.  257  note  b, 

63  E.  C.  L.  257  note  b     576 
v.  Lincoln,   27    Fed.   342    .  . 

116,     117 
V.  Steele,    (la.)    135  N.  W. 

411    326 

Robert  v.  Commercial  Bank,  13 

La.  528,   33  Am.   Doc.  570    .  .      488 
Roberts   v.   Armstrong,   1    Bush 

(Kv.)  263,  89  Am.  Dec. 

624    598,     605. 

V.  Carter,    9    Abb.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)    366  note 861,  1056 

V.  Carter.  17  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)    341   1056 

V.  Com.,  94  Kv.  499,  22   S. 

W.    845    .": 1123 

v.  Cooper,  20  How.  467,  15 

U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    969    ..      662 
V.  Denver,    etc.,    R.    Co.,    8 

Colo.  App.  504,  46  Pac. 

880 375,     376 

V.  Dotv,    31    Hun     (N.    Y.) 

128    249,  457.  1040' 

V.  Gates,     146     Mich.     169, 

109  N.  W.  264,  13  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  724.  .302,     581 
V.  Heim.   27   Ala.  678    ....      858 
v.  Mitchell,    94    Tenn.    277, 

29   S.   W.   5,  29   L.R.A. 

705    1055 

V.  Nelson,   22   Mo.  App.  28 

384,396,501.     979 
v.  People,   11   Colo.  213.   17 

Pac.  637   1095,  1099 

v.  Rumley,  58  Iowa  301.  12 

N.  W.   323    405 

V.  Smith,    3    La.    Ann.    205 

367,     410 
V.  Union     El.     R.     Co.     84 

Hun   437,   32   N.   Y.   S. 

387    1048,  1050,  1063 


CCXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[Eeferencos 

Tvoberts  v.  Wallev,  14   Fed.   167     G30 
V.  Yancev.    94   Kv.    24:1,   21 

S.  W.  1047,  42  Am.  St. 

Rep.    o57,    15    Kv.    L. 

Rep.  10,  14  Kv.  L;  Rep. 

42    ' G(;2,     CG7 

Robertson,  Re,  28  S.  D.  70,  132 

N.   W.   684,    36   L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    442    1225 

y.  Cavard,    111    Tenn.    356, 

77   S.  W.  1056 685,     686 

V.  Chapman,  152  U.  S.  673, 

14  S.  Ct.  741,  38  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)   592   322, 

515,  586,     592 
V.  Clocke,  18  App.  Div.  363. 

46  N.  Y.  87    515,     610 

V.  Fleming,   4   Macq.   H.  L. 

(Scotland)    167   585 

V.  Gordon,     34     App.     Cas. 

(D.   C.)    539    830 

V.  Holman.     36     Tex.     Civ. 

App.  31,  81   S.  W.  326     778 
V.  Moore,  10  Idaho  115,  77 

Pac.  218    854 

V.  Shutt,  9  Bush   (Ky.)  659  1053 
V.  Staed,    135   Mo.    135,    36 

S.  W.  610,  58  Am.  St. 

Rep.  569,  33  L.R.A.  203     334 
Robins,  Re,  61  Misc.  114,  112  N. 

Y,   S.  1032    1013 

Re,   11    Jur.   N.   S.    (Eng.) 

504    1332 

V.  Bridge,  3  M.  &  W.  (Eng.) 

114,    6    Dowl.    140,    M. 

&  H.  .357   543 

V.     Goldingham,    L.    R.    13 

Eq.   440,    41    L.   .1.    Ch. 

813,  25  L.  T.  N.  S.  900, 

20  W.  R.  277   243 

Robinson,   Ex   p.,   3   Ind.  .52 1305 

Ex  p.,  19   Wall.  505,  22  U. 

S.    (L.   ed.)    205.  .  1166, 

1168,    1206,    1294.    1296, 

1301,    1302,    1307,   1329 
Re,  131   Mass.  370,  41   Am. 

Rep.    239,    24    Alb.    E. 

.1.  448    ....    16,  4(1.  47,       52 
Re,    82    Ncl..    172.    17    Ann. 

Cari.    878,     117    \.    W. 

3.52    24,  3(),       39 

Re,   125  App.   Div.  424.    109 

.X.    Y.    S.   827,   nlllrmed 

192  X.  Y.  574.  85  X.  K. 

111.-.    993 


are  to  pages.] 

Re,  140  App.  Div.  329,  125 

X.   Y.   S.   193.. ..1167, 

1180,  1190,  1229,  1231, 

1239,  1268,   1269,   1271,  1318 
Re,  151   App.  Div.  589,  136 

X.   Y.    S.   548    . .    1229, 

1232.  1233,  1248 
Re,  59  Misc.  323,  112  X.  Y. 

S.  280  980,  1060,  1087 

Re,  48  Wash.  153,  15  Ann. 

Cas.  415,  92  Pac.  929, 

15  L.R.A. (X.S.)  525.. 

1169,  1178,  1193,  1196, 

1198,  1199 
V.  Brennan,  90  X.  Y.  208 .  .  249 
V,  Dauchy,  3  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 

20  328 

V.  Hawes,  56  Mich.  135,  22 

X.  W.  222   .  .   574,  577, 

597,  600,  840,  989,  994,  1035 
V.  Hays,   186  Fed.  295,   108 

C".  C.  A.  373    1031 

v.  Lee,    122    Fed.    1010    150 

V.  Loomis,  51  Pa.  St.  78..      775 
v.  McClellan,     1     How.    Pr. 

( X.  Y. )   90   265 

V.  Murphv,   69   Ala.  543.  .  . 

14,   351.   353,   383,   386,     396 
V.  Pikeville   Bank,   146  Ky. 

538,  142  S.  W.  1065,  37 

L.R.A. (X.S.)    1186    ...      353 
V.  Robinson,    32    Mo.    App. 

88.  90    427,     436 

V.  Robinson,    24    R.    I.   222, 

52  All.  992 847 

v.  Sharp.  103  111.  App.  239, 

affirmed  201   111.  86,  66 

X.  E.  299    . .    273,  274, 

581,  728.  740.  741,     780 
v.  Ward,  2  C.  &  P.  59,  Ti 

E.   0.   L.   28,   R.   &   M. 

274,    21    E.    C.    L.    43« 

572,     573 
Robson  V.  Beasley,  118  La.  738, 

43   So.   .391    773 

V.  Eaton,    1    T.    R.    (Eng.) 

62    442 

V.  Kemp.     4     Esp.      (Eng.) 

235,    5    Esp.    .52.  .  .168, 

ISl,    185,      198 
Robv   V.   Col.'lH.ur,    1.35    111.   300. 

25   N.   E.  777    285 

Roche,    1{.\    101    Voi\.   !)56,  42   C. 

C.      A.       115,      4      .\m. 

liankr.   Ken.  3f;9    823 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXVll 


[References 

Roelie  V.  ■Halilwin,  1:15  Cal.  r,22, 
65    Pae.    45!1,    67    Pac. 

903   770,  771,     881 

V.  Baldwin,    143    Cal.    1S6, 
76  Pac.  95(i  .  .705,  707, 
780,  7m,  878,  040,  !)57,     064 
Rochofoucauld   v.    Boiistead,    74 

L.  T.  N.  S.   (Eng.)   783  ..185,     222 
Rochester  Bank  v.  Emerson,   10 

Paige    (N.   Y.)    359    561 

Rochester  Bar  Assoc,  v.  Dorthy, 
152  N.  Y.  590,  46  N.  E.  835, 
affirming  8  App.  Div.  611,  41 
N.   Y.   S.   1112,   75   N.  Y.   St. 

Kep.  1480 1272,  1273 

Rochester  City  Bank  v.  Suydam, 
5     How.     Pr.     (N.     Y.)     254 

160,   193,   216,     220 
Rockford  v.  P^alver,  27  111.  App. 

604  175 

Rochfort  V.  Metropolitan  St.  R. 
(  o..  50  App.  Div.  261,  30  Civ. 
Proc.  285,   63   N.   Y.   S.    1030 

980,  1068,   1082 
Rockmore,    Re,    127    App.    Div. 
499,   111   X.  Y.  S.  879 
1195,  1196,  1198,  1199, 

1204,  1208 

Re,  130  App.  Div.  586,  117 

N.  Y.  S.  512,  139  App. 

Div.   71,   123   N.   Y.   S. 

928   ..1219,  1220,  1227, 

1236,    1298,  1319 
Rockwell  v.  Taylor,  41  Conn.  55 

342,     344 
Rockwell   Stock    &:   Land   Co.   v. 
Castroni,    6    Colo.    App.    528, 

42  Pac.  180 918 

Roddv  V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
104  Mo.  234,  15  S.  W.  1112, 
24  Am.  St.  Rep.  333,  12 

L.R.A.  746  529 

Rodgers,  Re,  194  Pa.  St.  161,  46 

Atl.  668    85,       87 

V.  Furse.  83  Ga.   115,   9   S. 

E.  669    1074 

V.  Hamilton.   49   Ga.   604..      992 
V.  Mutual    Endowment    As- 
sessment  Assoc,    17    S. 

C.     409      470 

V.  Pitt,    89    Fed.    424     630 

Roe,    Re,    81    App.   Div.   656,   81 

N.  Y.   S.  249    1293 

v.  Jerome,  18  Conn.  138   ..      683 
Roediger  v.  Simmons,  2  Abb.  N. 

Cas':  279    1040 

Rogan  v.  Walker,  1   Wis.  597..      511 


are  to  pages.] 

Roger  v.  \Miitham.  56  Wash, 
too.  21  Ann.  Cas.  272,  105 
Pac.    628,    134    Am.   St.    Rep. 

1105    299 

Rogers  v.  Bradley,  100  Kv.  344, 

38  S.  Wl  501,  19  Ky.  L. 

Rep.  114    1147 

V.  Burbridge,    5    Tex.    Civ. 

App.  67,  24  S.  W.  300     129 
V.  Crommelin,      1       Cranch 

(C.    C.)     536,    20    Fed. 

Cas.  No.  12,009   430 

V.  Daniels,     116     111.    App. 

515      190 

V.  Dare,      Wright      (Ohio) 

136      155,     171 

V.  Driscoll,    125   S.   W.   599     270 
V.  Gaston,  43  Minn.  189,  45 

N.  W.  427    ..298,  300,     306 
V.  Greenwood,       14      Minn. 

333      486 

V.  Hendrick,  85  Conn.  260, 

82  Atl.  586 679 

V.  Hill,    22    R.    I.    496,    48 

Atl.    670    1164 

V.  Hopkins,   70   Ga.  454    .  .      573 
V.  Lyon,   64   Barb.    (N.  Y.) 

373    200 

v.  McKenkie,  81   N.   C.    164 

364,  374,  376,  379,  445, 

521,     711 
v.  Marcus,     93     App.     Div. 

553,   87   N.   Y.   S.   941, 

reversing  40  Misc.  442, 

82   N.   Y.   S.   707    1042 

V.  Marshall,  13  Fed.  59    .  .      286 
V.  Marshall,      3      McCrarv 

(U.     S.)      76,     9     Feci. 

721     .  .273,     275,     279, 

280,  281,     283 
V.  The     Marshal,     1     Wall. 

644,   17   U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

714      506 

V.  O'Mary,    95     Tenn.    514, 

32  S.  W.  462    782.     934 

V.  Palmer.    102    U.    S.    263. 

26   U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    164     266 
V.  Park,  4  Humph.   (Tenn.) 

480     418,     424 

V.  Palmer,    1    Hughes,    148, 

20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,018     561 
y.  Patterson,    4    Paige    (N. 

Y. )    450    629 

v.  Pettigrew,    138    Ga.    528, 

Ann.    Cas.    191 3D    409, 

75  S.  E.  631,  42  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)   852   943 


CCXVIU 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Rogers  v.  Polvteclinie,  etc.,  Tnst., 
87  App.  Div.  81,  84  X. 

Y.  S.   12    739 

V.  Priest,   74   Wis.   538.    43 

N.    \V.    510    55!),     785 

V.  Randel,    2    Har.     (Del.) 

499     809,     873 

V.  R.  E.  Lee  Min.  Co.,  9 
Fed.  721,  14  Cent.  Law 
J.  108,  3  McCrary  76, 
13  Rep.  39    ..278,  282, 

284,  285.  286,     287 
V.  Rockwood,  20  Civ.  Proc. 
(N.  Y.)    212,  13  N.  Y. 

S.   939    474 

V.  Rogers,     (Tenn.)     35    S. 

W.  890    299,     352 

V.  Van   Eps,   143   Wis.  396, 

127  N.  W.  1006    ..638,     640 
Rohr  V.   Anderson.   51    j\Id.   205 

384,    396,    398,     408 
Rohrhof    v.    Schmidt,    218    111. 

585,  75  N.  E.  1062 772,     774 

Rolfe  V.  Rich,  149  111.  436,  35 
N.    E.    352,   affirming    46    111. 

App.     406     277 

Roll  V.  Mason,  9  Ind.  App.  651, 

37  N.  E.  298    898 

Roller    V.    IMcGraw,    63    W.    Va. 
462,  60   S.  E.  410,  411 

278,  279,  515,     523 
V.  Murray.  107  Va.  527.  59 
S.    E.    421     ..661,    662, 

671,   672,   676,     685 
V.  Murray,     112     Va.     780, 
Ann."  Cas.  1913B   1088, 
72  S.  E.  665,  38  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)    1202    671, 

676.     760 
V.  Paul,    106    Va.    214,    55 

S.  E.  558   844 

V.  Wooldridge,       46       Tex. 

485     .." 385,    100,     401 

Rollins  V.  iSchavvacker,   153   Mo. 

Ajip.   284.    133    S.   W.   409    ..      768 
Roman     v.     Moli,    42     Md.    513 

277,   285,     286 
Komljcrg     V.    liuglies,     18    Nel). 

579,   26    X.   W.   35]     175 

Rome,  Re,  162  Fed.  971,   19  Am. 

Mankr.   Rep.  820    S20 

itomcyn    v.    Canipau,     17    Mich. 

327" 886 

Roinona  Onlitic  Stone  (^o.  v. 
Weaver,  4!)  hid.  App.  3(18,  97 
N.   E.  441     853 


are  to  pages.] 

Ronald  v.  Mutual  Reserve  Fund 
L.  Assoc,  30  Fed.  228    ..237, 

238,  254,  261,  796,  800,   1051 
Rook  v.  Dickinson,  38  Misc.  690, 
11  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  454,  78  N. 

Y.   S.   287    1033,  1079" 

Rooker  v.    Bruce,   45   Ind.   App. 

57,  90  N.  E.  86   563 

Rooney  v.  Maryland  Casualty 
Co.,    184    Mass.    20,    6*7 

N.   E.   882    208 

v.  Second   Ave.    R.    Co.,    18 
N.   Y.   368    ..729,   861, 
971,  977,  978,  988,  989,  1048 
Roosevelt  v.   Dale,   2   Cow.    (N. 

Y.)    581    460 

Root  V.  Mcllvaine,  56  S.  W. 
498,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  7 
237,      239,      254,      261, 

796,     807 
V.  Topeka   Water   Sup- 
ply   Co..    46    Kan.    183, 
189,   26    Pac.   398,   400  1049 
V.  Van      Duzen,      32      Hun 

(N.    Y.)     63     457 

V.  Wright,  84  N.  Y.  72,  38 
Am.  Rep.  495,  revers- 
ing 21  Hun  344    .  .156, 

168,  185,  180,     190 
Rootes  V.  Stone,  2  Leigh    (Va.) 

650 570,     608 

Roper    Lumber    Co   v.    Elizabeth 

City    Lumber    Co..    137    N.    C. 

43l",   49   S.  E.  946.  modifying 

135  N.  C.  744,  47  S.  E.'757  477 

Roper  V.  State,  58  N.  J.  L.  420, 

33  Atl.  969  206 

Roraback    v.    Pennsylvania    Co., 

58   Conn.  292.  20  Atl.  465    .  .      884 
Rose  V.  Mynatt,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 

30 274,  278,  286 

740.  747,  748 
V.  Spies,   44   Mo.   20    .  .781, 

941,    942,     960 
V.  Whiteman,  .52  Misc.  210, 
101     N.     Y.     S.     1024 

615,  016,  619,  1037 
IJoseherrv  v.   Wilson,    (Ky.)    08 

S.    \V."417    ' 327 

Piosebud  V.  State,  50  'lY'.K.  Crim. 

475.   98   S.   \V.   858    178,     196 

Rosebud       Min.      etc..      Co.      v. 
llll.uli.-^.       21        Cnb).       .Aim.. 

162.  04  Pac.  247    .  .509,      584 
v,      ilu^lies.    21    Colo.    App. 

247,   121    I'ae.  (171    587 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXl.X 


[ReforeiiCL'S 

Roselius    V.    Delacliaise,    5    La. 
Ann.    481,    52    Am.    Dee.    .j!)7 

420,    424,   884,   88!),     ))04 
Rosenbaum    v.    Statu,    33    Ala. 

;5.54      iST 

V.  Syvcrson        Lumber        & 
Sb ingle   Co.,    U5    Wasli. 

459,  118  Piu.'.  C2.5    911 

V.  McTliomas,    34    Ind.    331      4J4 
Rosenblatt  v.  Rosenberg,  1  Neb. 
(unoflicial)    Rep.    G.iG,    95    N. 

W.   680    040 

Rosenburg     v.     Rosenburg,     40 

Hun  91    184,     185 

Rosenstein    v.    Foigel,    6    Phila. 

(Pa.)    532,   25    Leg.   Int.    37        050 
Rosenthal,    Re,    137    App.    Div. 
772,   122  N.   Y.   S.  471 
1218,  1220,  1205,  1307, 

1315,  1318 
Re,    120    Fed.    848,    9    Am. 
Bankr.   Rep.   026.. 817, 

818,     825 
V.  Dickerman,       98       Mich. 
208,   57   N.  W.   112,  39 
Am.    St.    Rep.    535,    22 

L.R.A.  093    611 

V.  Forman,    115    N.    Y.    S. 

282     432,     437 

Rosewater    v.   Schwab   Clothing 

Co.,  58  Ark.  440,  25  S.  W.  73     170 
Roskopp    V.    Circuit    Judge,    97 

Mich.    028,   50   N.   W.   940    .  .      207 
Ross,  Re.  136  Cal.  029,  69  Pac. 

430    487 

Re,  123  App.  Div.  74,  107  N. 

Y^  S.  899    ..994,   1013,  1037 

Re,  10  Ont.  Pr.  482    1221 

V.  Baver,  etc.,  Co.,  123  App. 
Div.  404,  107  N.  Y.  S. 

1003    701    781,  1062 

V.  Calder,    3    U.    C.    Q.    B. 

180     536 

V.  Chicago,   etc.   R.   Co.,  55 
Iowa  691,  8  N.  W.  044 

073,    685,  1047 
V.  Conwav,  92  Cal.  632,  28 

Pac.  *785    273 

V.  Demoss,  45  111.  447,  449     332 
V.  Gerrish,  8  Allen   (Mass.) 

147    602 

V.  Gibbs,   L.   R.   8    Eq.  522, 

39  L.  J.  Ch.  01   183 

V.  Harvev,  32  Ga.  388 540 

V.  Innis,'  26    111.    259,    200 

638,     046 


are  to  pages.] 

Ross    V.    La    Cagnina,    08    Misc. 

497,   124   N.   Y.   S.   753     S52 
V.  Loughton,    1    Ves.    &    B. 

(Lng.)    349    973,     974 

V.  Niles,  84  N.  Y.  S.  142  464 
V.  Payson,  160  111.  349,  43 

N.  E.  399 273,  281, 

282,  283,  285. 
V.  Ross,  140  la.  51,  117  N. 

W.  1105  211 

V.  State,  8  Wyo.  351,  57 

Pac.  924 1103,  1104 

Rosseau  v.  Bleau,  131  N.  Y.  177, 
30  N.  E.  52,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 

578  20a 

Roth  V.  Boies,  139  la.  253,  115 
N.  W.  930    ..322,   831, 

834,  8.35.  836,     837 
V.  Shupp,    94    Md.    55,    50 

Atl.  430    525,     530 

Roth's  Succession,  33  La.  Ann. 

540   784 

Rothery  v.  Munnings,  1  B.  &  Ad. 
15,  20  E.  C.  L.   j34,  8  L.  J. 

K.    B.   386    958 

Rothewel  v.  Fewer,  Y^ear  Book, 

9  Hen.  VI.  64   674 

Rothschild,    Re,    140    App.   Div. 
583,   125   N.   Y.  S.   629 

10,    1252,    1318,  1319 
V.  State,  7  Tex.  App.  519..    1116 
Rothwell    V.    King,    2     Swanst. 

(Eng.)    221    note    202 

Rounds    V.    State,    57    Wis.    45, 

14  N.  W.  865   1112 

Rounsaville  v.   Hazen,   33   Kan. 

71,  5  Pac.  422    409,     499 

Roush    v.    Fort,    3    Mont.    175 

242,     267 
Rousseau   v.   Bleau,    131   N.   Y. 
177,    30    N.    E.    52,   27 
Am.    St.    Rep.   578,   re- 
versing GO  Hun  259,  14 

N.  Y^  S.  712    220 

V.  Marionneaux,       28       La. 

Ann.  293    800 

Roussin  V.  Stewart,  33  Cal.  208     469 
Rouver  v.  Miller,  16  Ind.  App. 
519,    44   N.    E.    51,   45    N.    E. 

674      779 

Rowe  V.  Fogle,  88  Ky.  105,  10 
S.  W.  426,  2  L.R.A. 

708 804,  982,  1040, 

1044.  1050 
V.  Langley,    49    N.    H.    .StlS 

988.   105.-) 


ccxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  ar 

Howe  V.  Yuba   County,   17   Cal. 

61     145,     713 

Rowell   V.    Ross,   87    Conn.    157, 

87   Atl.  355    780 

Rowland,  Ke,  55  App.  Div.  60, 
8  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  397, 
66  N.  Y.  S.  1121  af- 
firmed 166  N.  Y.  641, 
60    N.    E.    1120... 980, 

1037,   1038,  1060 

V.  Gardner,  69  N.  C.  53 431 

V.     Plummer,   50   Ala.    182 

225,     327 
V.  Slate,    58     Pa.    St.    196 

359,     497 
Rowles  V.  Senior,  8  Q.  B.   677, 

55  E.  C.  L.  677,   10  Jur.  354     526 
Rowlett  V.  Shepherd,  7  Mart.  N. 

S.    (La.)    515   505 

Roy  V.  Goings,  112  111.  656 

638,  649 
V.  Harley,  1  Duer  (N.  Y.) 

637  110,  259 

Royal   Trust   Co.    v.   Washburn 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Fed.  531 630 

Roysdon  v.  Sumner,  2  Ark.  465     877 
Rubel    V.    Burr,    132    App.    Div. 

910,  117  N.  Y.  S.  63    974 

Ruby,  The,  38  Fed.  622    298 

Ruckman    v.    AUwood,    40    111. 

128   431 

V.  Alwood,  44  111.  183  363 

Rude,  Re,  101  Fed.  805,  4  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  319  785,  819 

Rue  V.  Quinn,  137  Cal.  651,  66 

Pac.  216,  70  Pac.  732  460 

Ruggles  V.  Ives,   6  Mass.  494..      541 
V.  Swanwick,   6    Minn.    526     377 
Ruiz  V.    Dow,    113   Cal.   490,   45 

Pac.  867    205 

Rumsey  v.  Frank,  84  Mo.  App. 

508  781,  846 

V.  King,  33  L.  T.  N.  S. 

(Kng.)  728  ..402,  403,  489 
Runherg  v.  .Johnson,  11  Civ. 
I'loc.  283,  5  N.  Y.  St.  Rop. 

K60  518 

ltun(ll)erg   v.    Belclicr,    118    Cal. 

589.   50   Pac.   670    260 

Itiitidle    V.    Foster,    3   'I'cnii.    Cli. 

658     201,     331 

Itiindies   V.  .Jones,   3    Ind.   35    ..      246 
Unngc  V.   I'Vaiiklin,  72  Tew  5S5, 
10  S.  \V.  721,   13  Am.  St.  Kcp. 
833,  3  L.ll.A.  417    535 


e  to  pages.] 

Ruohs     V.     Backer,      6      llcisk. 
(Tenn.)     395,     19     Am.     l!cp. 

598    533 

Ruos,   Re,    159    Fed.   252    ..159, 

163,  164,     170 
Ruppertsberger  v.  Clark,  53  Md. 

402      502 

Rush   V.    Cavenaugh,   2    Pa.    St. 

187   ..81,  139,  244,  951,   1120 
Russ  V.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co., 
112  Mo.  45,  20  S.  W.  472,  18 

L.R.A.  823    340 

Russel  V.  Palmer,  2  Wils.  C.  PI. 

(Eng.)   325   582 

Re,  1  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)   3  49   1035 
V.  Ball,    1    Caines    (N.    Y.) 

252    470 

V.  Drummond,    6    Ind.    216     359 
V.  Ferguson,  77  Vt.  433,  00 

Atl.   802    543 

V.  Geyer,  4  Mo.  384    ..299,     506 
V.  Jackson,  9  Hare    (Eng.) 
387,      15      Jur.      lil7 

210,     211 
V.  Lane,    1    Barb.    (N.    Y.) 

519    531 

V.  Pottawattomie      Couutv, 

29   la.   256    .".      443 

V.  Y'oung,    94    Fed.    45,    36 

C.  C.  A.  71   ..726,  770,     918 
Rust    V.     Frothingliam,     Breese 

(111.)    331    443 

V.  Larue,  4  Litt.  (Kv.) 
416,  14  Am.  Dec.  172 
560,  653,  675,  701,  739, 

749,  760,     915 
Ruthenberg   v.   Helberg,   43  La. 

Ann.  413,  9  So.  99 847 

Rutland   v.   Cobb,   32   La.   Ann. 

857    790,  884,     928 

Rutland    R.    Co.    v.    Beique,    37 

Can.    Sup.    Ct.    303    305 

Ryan,  Ex  p.,  62  Tex.  Crini.   19, 

130  S.  W.  65    630,     031 

Re,  143  N.  Y.  528,  38  N.  K. 

903    1211,  121ti,   1237 

V.  Ashton,  42  la.  365  .  .740.     743 
V.  Beard,    74    Ala.    306..  . 

347.     348 
V.   Brown,     104     N.     Y'.     S. 

871    344 

V.  Doric,  .31   Iowa  5;?   .  .375, 

371).    377.     439 
V.  Long,    35    Minii.    3S4,    2!) 
I\.'    W.    51     ..233,    550. 

551),     580 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXl 


[References 

llyan    v.    Martin.     ]G    Wis.     57 

6r,;),  072,     720 
V.  Martin,  ,  18      Wis.      672 

238,  74],     800 
V.  Opdvlce,   14.3   N.   Y.   528, 

38'  N.  E.  903    1260 

V.  Philadelphia,  etc.  Coal 
etc.,  Co.,   189   Fed.  253 

705,  807,     808 
V.  Tudor,    31    Kan.    366,    2 

Pao.  797    893 

Ryburn  v.  Moore,  72  Tex.  85,  10 

S.    W.    393    133 

Ryce  V.  IVIitchell  County,  65  la. 

447,  21   N.   W.   771    715 

Rvckman    v.    Coleman,    13    Abb. 

■pr.   (N.  Y.)    398    12G 

Ryland     v.    Noakes,     1     Taunt. 

(Eng.)   342 265 

Ryles  V.   Statliam   Bank,   7   Ga. 
"App.  489,  67  S.  E.  383.. 154, 

169,  203,     204 

S 

Sackett   v.    Breen.    50    Hun    602 

mem.,  3  N.  Y.  S.  473 574, 

599,  949.     904 
Sacramento    County    v.    Central 
Pac.    R.    Co.,    61    Cal.    250.. 

1160,  1163 
Safford  v.  Foster,  74  Ga.  751  415 
Safford  V.  Carroll,  23  La.  Ann. 

382    812.    1048,  1050 

V.  Vermont,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 
Vt.  185,  14  Atl.   91    .  . 

889,     943 
Sage  V.  Riegs,  12  Mich.  313   .  .      773 

V.   State.   91   Ind.   141    715 

Saint  V.  Martel,  122  La.  93,  47 

So.    413     678 

St.  Clair  v.  Marquell,   161   Ind. 

56.   67   N.   E.  693    848 

St.  John  V.   Bird,  110  N.  Y.  S. 

389    701,     917 

V.     Diefendorf.     12     W'end. 

(N.  Y.)    261    973,  1035 

St.    .Johnsburv,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Hunt,  59  Vt.  294,  7  Atl.  277 

033.     0.37 
St.    Leger's    Appeal.    34    Conn. 

4,34,  91  Am.  Dec.  735    .  .    274,     290 
St.   Louis   V.   Laughlin,    49    Mo. 

559    90,    101,     102 

V.  Sternberg,  69  INIo.  289, 
reversing  4  Mo.  App. 
453  ..  96,  97,  101,  102,     103 


are  to  pages.] 

St.   Louis,    etc.,   R.   Co.   v.   Ben- 
nett,   35    Kan.    3!)5.    !  1 

Pac.  155 .323,  1001 

V.  Clark,    51    Fed.    483,    10 
U.  S.  App.  66,  2  C.  C. 

A.    331     784 

V.  Dudgeon,  28  Kan.  283..      964 
V.  Dy.sart,     (Tex.)     130    S. 

W.   1047    1047 

V.  Epperson,    97    Mo.    300. 

10  S.  W.  478    486 

V.  Grove,    39    Kan.    731,    18 

Pac.  958    880^ 

V.  Hadley,  161  Fed.  419   .  . 

1143,  115a 
St.  Louis  Institute,  Re,  27  Mo. 

App.  633   148 

St.   Louis   Third   Nat.    Bank   v. 

Snyder,    10  Mo.   App.   211    .  .      323 
St.    Ravner,    Ex    p.,    (Ore.)     70 

Pac.  "537    1241,  1307 

Salinger    v.    Mason,     194     Fed. 

382,  114  C.  C.  A.  300   764 

Salisbury  v.  Gourgas,  10  Mete. 

(Mass.)    442   582,     587 

V.  Stewart,  15  Utah  308,  49 
Pac.    777,    62    Am.    St. 

Rep.    934    777 

Sallade's  Appeal,  36  Pa.  St.  429 

295,     301 
Salter  v.  Brid^en,  1  .Johns.  Cas. 

(N.   Y.)    244    473- 

V.  Dunn,  1  Bush  (Ky.)  311  296: 
Sammis  v.  L'Engle,  19  Fla.  800  73.5 
Sample  v.   Frost,  10  la.  206   .  . 

12,  161,  173,     193 
Samples   v.    Carnahan,    21    Ind. 

App.  55,  51  N.  E.  425    139 

Sampson     v.     Highway    Cora'rs, 

115  111.  App.  443    14!) 

Sams    V.    Rhette,    2    McMul.    L. 

(S.  C.)    171    528 

Samuels  v.  Dubuque  County,  13 

la.    536     813 

V.  Simpson,    144    App.   Div. 
466,  129  N.  Y.  S.  53 1.. 

726,     884 
San  Antonio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Belt, 
24  Tex.  Civ.  App.  281, 

59  S.  W.  007   737 

V.  Brookinsr,    (Tex.)    51    S. 

W.  537    208 

Sanborn,  Re,  1.52  App.  Div.  935, 

137  N.  Y.  S.  1141 

1317,  1320^ 
V.  Kimball.   64  Me.   140    .  . 

1168,  1186,  1273,  1290i 


CCXXll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Sanborn    v.    Plowman,    20    Tex. 
Civ.    App.    404,    4!)    S. 

W.    639    888 

Sandberg  v.  Victor  Gold  &  Sil- 
ver Min.  Co.,  18  Utab  66,  55 

Pac.  74    237.  260,  262, 

1009,  1015,  1051 
Sanders  v.  Gillett,   8  Daly    (N. 

Y.)    183    1054 

V.  Graves,  105  Fed.  849,  af- 
firmed 125  Fed.  690,  60 

C.  C.  A.  422    

941,  942,     960 
V.  Price,   56   S.   C.   1,   33  S. 

E.  731   418 

V.  Riddick,    (Tenn.)    156  S. 

W.   464    403,   766,     864 

V.  Seelye,  128  111.  031.  21 
N.  E.  601,  affirming  27 
111.  App.  288  .  .  768. 
769,  784,  970,  971,  792, 

973.  977,  1035.  1036 
V.  Woodburv.    146   Ky.    153 

142  S.  W.  207    739 

■Sanderson  v.  Caldwell,  45  N.  Y. 

398,  6  Am.  Rep.  105..      134 
V.  State,    (Tex.)    44   S.    W. 

1103     342 

Sanford  v.  Flint,  108  Minn.  399, 

122  N.  W.  315    .  .    204,     306 
v.  Remington,    2    Ves.    Jcr. 

(Eng.)    189    201 

■Randiford  v.  Frost,  9  App.  Div. 

55.  41  N.  Y.  S.  103   184 

Sandoz  v.   Veazie,   106  La.   202, 

30  So.  767   632,     637 

Sands    v.    Frontier    County,    42 

Me.  837,   60  N.   W.   1017..    1125 
Sanford  v.  Rennett.  24  N.  Y.  20     133 
V.  Bronson,    109   App.   Div. 
835,  96  N.  Y.  S.  859   .  . 

701,  781,     798 
V.  Newell,  18  Mont.  126,  44 

Pac.  522    877 

v.   Pttickman,    24    How.     Pr. 

(X.    Y.)    521    862 

San  Francisco  v.  U.  S.,  4  Sawv. 

553,  21    Fed.   Cas.  No.    12,316   1090 
San     Francisco    Sav.    Union    v. 
Eong,    123    Cal.    107,    55    Pac. 
708,  reversing  53  Pac.  907    .  . 

415,     424 
'SangrT   v.    Dun,   47    Wis.   615,   3 

N.   W.   3H8.   32   Am.   Rep.  7H9     522 
'Sanguinctti    v.    Hosscn,    12    Cal. 

App.   623,    107    Pile.   560    

229,   278,     279 


are  to  pages.] 

San  Luis  Obispa  Countv  v.  Hen- 
dricks,   71    Cal.   242,'  11    Pac. 

682    415,     419 

Sanpere    v.    Sanpere,    57    Wash. 

524.  107  Pac.  369    225 

Sappington   v.   Watson,   50   AIo. 

83     640 

Saranac  &  Lake  Placid  R.  Co.  v. 

Arnold,  37  Misc.  514,  75  N.  Y. 

S.  1003,  affirmed  72  App.  Div. 

620,  76  N.  Y.  S.  1032   .  .   993,  1076 

Sardv.    Re,   65    Hun   619   mem., 

19"^N.  Y.  S.  575   614 

Sargeant  v.   Clark,   108   Pa.  St. 

588     489 

V.  Downey,  49   Wis.   524,   5 

N.  W.  903    573 

v.  Pettibone,  1  Aiken   (Vt.) 

355      543 

Sargent  v.  Hampden,  38  Me.  581 

161,    166,     196 
V.  Johns,    206    Pa.    St.    386, 

55  Atl.  1051    327 

V.  McLeod,    155    App.    Div. 

21,  139  N.  Y.  S.  666  ..      801 
Sarro  v.  Bell,   (Tex.)   126  S.  W. 

24   202 

Sasse   V.    Rogers,    40    Ind.    App. 

197,  81  N.  E.  590 634 

V.  Olliff.  91  Ga.  84,  16  S.  E. 

312     561 

Sato  V.  Hubbard,  8  Ont.  Pr.  445     461 
Sattcrlee  v.  Bliss,  36  Cal.  489  . . 

162,  187.   193,     216 
v.  Frazcr,  4  Sandf.   (N.  Y.) 

141    598,     602 

Sattler  v.  Knapp,   60  Ore.   466, 

120  Pac.  2    853 

Saunders  v.  Baldwin,  112  Va. 
431.  Ann.  Cas.  1913B, 
1049,  71   S.  E.  620,  34 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    958 

633,  635,     637 
V.  McCartbv,         8         Allen 

( Mass.')   42 345 

Savage  v.  Blanchard,  148  Mass. 

348,  19  X.  E.  396    377 

V.  Parker.  53  Fla.  1002.  43 

So.  507  132,  133 

Savannah  v.  Hines,  53  Ga.  616 

101,  102 
Savary  v.  Savary,  3  Iowa,  271  437 
Saverv   v.    Savery,    8    Iowa,   217 

416,     428 
v.  Svpber,   6   Wall.    157,   18 

U.  S.    ( L.  ed.  822   298 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXlll 


[References 

"Savill  V.  Landman,  70  L.  T.  N. 

S.    (Eii<T.)    44    674 

Savings    Bank   of    Cincinnati    v. 
Benton,  2  Mote.   (Ky.)   240  .. 

8S9,     896 
Sawdey  v.  Barnes,   (Wash.)    132 

Pac.  225    602 

Sawyer  v.  Goodwin,  1  CIi.  D. 
(Eng.)     351,    45    L.    J. 

Ch.  289    585 

V.  Perry,  62  la.  238,  17  N. 

W.  497    775 

V.  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.,  41 
Wash.   524,   84    Pac.   8 

377,  395,     401 
Saxton   V.    Harrington,    52   Neb. 

300,  72  N.  W.  272 

882,  889,  893,     902 
V,  Wyckoff,     6     Paige     (N. 

Y.)    182    609,  610,     611 

Sayer,  Re,    146   App.   Div.   928, 

131  N.  Y.  S.  381 1219, 

1227,  1316,  1319 
Sayles  v.  Genesee  Circuit  Judge, 

82  Mich.  84,  46  N.  W.  29 1092 

Sayre,   Ex   p.,   7   Cow.    (N.   Y.) 

368     63 

V.  Grvmes,    1     Hen.    &    M. 

(Va.)    404    151 

V.  Thompson,    18    Neb.    33, 

43,  24  N.  W.  383.  .971,     972 
Say's  Case,  10  Mod.    (Eng.)    40 

170,     201 
Scaife  v.   W^estern    North   Caro- 
lina Land  Co.,  90  Fed.  238,  61 
U.  S.  App.  647,  33  C.  C.  A.  47 

347,     348 
Scales  V.  Kelley,  2  Lea   (Tenn.) 

706     173 

Scarborough  v.  Harrison  Naval 
Stores  Co.,  95  Miss. 
501,  52  So.  143,  revers- 
ing   95    Miss.    497,    51 

So.  274    455 

V.  Reynolds,   12   Ala.  252..      490 
Scarritt  Furniture  Co.  v.  Moser, 

48  Mo.  App.  543 483,     484 

Schaaf    v.    Fries,    77    Mo.    App. 

346     195 

Schaefer  v.  Kienzel,  123  111.  430, 

15  N.  E.  164  847 

V.  Schoenborn,      94      Minn. 

490,    103   N.   W.   501.  .      486 
v.  Siegcl,    9    Mo.    App.    594     483 
iSchafer's  Estate,  39   Pa.  Super. 

Ct.  384    237,  238,     240 


are  to  i)ages.] 

SchafFer   v.   Troutwein.    (Okla.) 

129   Pac.   696    355 

Schalk  V.  Kingsley,  42  N.  J.  L. 

32,  33,  52    .52.'.,  527.     531 

Schall    V.    Bly,   43   UU:h.   401,   5 

N.   W.  651    312 

Schaller,   Re,   10  Daly    (N.  Y.) 

57    707"   708,  721,     767 

Schamberg   v.   Auxier,    101    Ky. 

292.  40  S.  W.  911,  19  Ky.  L. 

Rep.    548     ' 949 

Schapiro,  Re,  144  App.  Div.  1, 

128  N.  Y.  S.  852  1234, 

1235,  12.36,  1303 
Scharlock  v.  Oland,  1  Rich.  L. 

(S.  C.)  207  1031,  1041 

Scharps  v.  Hess,  120  N.  Y.  S.  56 

781,  785,     964 
Schattman   v.    American    Credit 

Indemnity   Co.,    34   App.   Div. 

392,  54  N.  Y.  S.  225 

200,  201,  202,     203 
Scheinsohn      v.      Lemonek,      84 

Ohio      St.      424,      Ann.      Cas. 

1912C,  737,  95  N.  E.  913 

794,    882,     960 
Schell,  Re,  128  N.  Y.  67,  27  N. 

E.  957,  affirming  58  Hun  440, 

12  N.  Y.  S.  790 609,  610,     614 

Schelly  v.  Zink,  13  Hun  (N.  Y.) 

538    241,     498 

Schenck,  Ex  p.  65  N.  C.  353  .  . 

1170,  1272,  1273 
Scherer,  Re,  111  App.  Div.  23, 

35  Civ.  Proc.  314,  97  N.  Y.  S. 

171  980,  992,  994 

Schermerhorn  v.  Van  Allen,  18 

Barb.  (N.  Y.)  29  880 

Scheu   V.    Blum,    124    App.    Div. 

678,  109  N.  Y.  S.  130   .  .   263,     797 
Schiefer  v.  Freygang,   141   App. 

Div.  236,  125"N.  Y.  S.  1037  .  . 

956.  1062 
Schippel    V.     Norton,    38    Kan. 

567,  16  Pac.  804   632 

Schirling  v.  Scites,  41  Miss.  644 

416,    422,    444,     518 
Schleimer,    Re,    150    App.    Div. 

507,  135  N.  Y.  S.  406    

1239,    1240.    1317,  1320 
Schlemmer    v.    Sclilemmer.    107 

Mo.   App.   487,   81   S.   W.   636 

384,    396,     499 
Schlesinger   v.   Dunne,   36   Misc. 

529.  10  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.   350, 

73   N.  Y.  S.   T014    . .781,   786. 

787,   7SS,  790,  940,  941,     942 


CCXXIV 


TABI.E    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Schlicht  V.   Stivers,   61    la.   746, 

16  N.  W.  74    891.     ni6 

Schlitz  V.   Mever,   61    Wis.   418, 

21   X.   W.   243    418,     432 

Scliloss  V.  Plewlett,  81  Ala.  266, 

1   So.  263    1136 

Sclilotterer  v.  Brooklyn,  etc., 
Ferrv  Co.,  89   App.  Div.  508, 

85  N.  Y.  S.  847   227 

Schmertz   v.   Hammond,    51    W. 

Va.    408,    41    S.    E.    184.. 987,  1023 
Schmidt   v.    Curtiss,    72    Wash, 

211.  130  Pac.  89 705 

V,  Olvnipia  Liaht,  etc.,  Co., 
46  Wash.  "360,  90  Pac, 

212     268 

V.  Oregon  Gold  Min.  Co.,  28 
Ore,  26,  40  Pac.  406, 
1014,  52   Am.  St.  Rep. 

759     496 

Schmitz  V.  South  Covington, 
etc,  St.  R.  Co.,  131  Ky.  207, 
18  Ann.  Cas.  1114,  114  S.  W. 
1197,  22   L.R.A,(N,S.)    776.. 

730,  808,     809 
Schneible  v.  Travelers'  Ins,  Co, 
36  Misc.  522,  32  Civ.  Pro,  273, 
73  X,  Y.  S,  955    ,  ,    259,  262, 

325,  326,       1051 
Schneider    v.    Vercker,    11    La, 

Ann.    742     460 

Schnt-ll  V,  Schlernitzauer,  82  111, 

439     705 

Schnitker  v,  Schnitker,   109   la. 

349,  80  X.  W.  403 858 

Schnitzer,  Re,  33  Xev.  581,  112 
Pac.     848,     33     L.R.A.(X.S.) 

941    1256,  1318 

Schoen   v,   Sunderland,   39   Kan, 

758.  18  Pac,  913 131 

Scholield,    Re,    17    Am,    Bankr. 

Rep.  918   628 

V,  Felt,    10    Colo,    146,    14 

I'iic,   128    355 

V.  Wool  ley,  98  Ga.  518.  25 
S.   E,   769,   58   Am.    St, 

Rep,  315    606 

Sclioles  v.  Brook,  64  L.  T,  X.  S. 
(Eng.)    674.    iinirming    63    L. 

T,   X,  S.  837    560 

Schomp  V.  Sclicnck.  40  X.  .1,  L, 
195,  29  Am,   IJej),  219    .  .    663, 

704,   723,   741,   742,   86'.)     870 
School  iJirectors  v.  School  'I  rii.i- 

tecH,  6«  III.  247    415 


are  to  pages.] 

School    Dist,    V,    Board    of    Im- 
provement, 65  Ark.  345,  46  S. 

W.   418 85& 

Scliool   Dist.   Xo.    116   V.   School 
Dist.   Xo.    141,    79    Kan.    407, 

99    Pac.  620    257,     511 

Schoregge   v,  Gordon,   29   Minn, 

367,   13  X.  W,  194    355,     357 

Schouweiler  v,   Allen,   17  X.   D. 

510,  117  X,  W,  866    

237,   2.38,     254 
Schreck,  Re,  1  Am,  Bankr,  Rep. 

366 628 

Schreiber    v.    Heath,    103    App, 
Div,   364,  92   X,   Y,   S. 

1043 58.5 

V.  Straus,  147  111.  App.  581 

383,     395 

Schriever    v.    Brooklyn    Heights 

R.  Co..  30  Misc.  145,  30  Civ. 

Proc.    67,    61    X.    Y.    S.    644, 

890,   modifving   49    App.    Div. 

629,  63  X.  Y.  S.  217   

874,  1043,  1052,  1075,  1078 
Schroeder  v.  Blum,  74  Xeb.  60, 

103  X.  W.  1073 650 

V.  Gillespie.  2  Pa,  Dist,  Ct, 

221 385,  397,  405,     498. 

V.  Wolf,  227  111,  138,  81  X. 
E,  13,  affirming  127  111. 
App,   506    .  .    359,   368,     383 
Schroudenbeck    v.    Phoenix    Fire 

Ins,  Co.,  15   Wis,   6,32    419 

Scliubkagel  v,  Dierstein,  131  Pa, 
St,  46,  18  Atl,  1059,  6  L,R,A. 

481,  25  W,  X,   C,  185    172 

Schuek  V,  Hagar,  24  Minn.  339     127 
Schull,   Re,   25    S.    D.    602,    127 
X.  W.  541.  modified  26  S.  D. 

353.  128  X.  W.  .321    1297 

Schultheis    v.    Xash,    27    Wash. 

250,  67   Pac,  707    254, 

257,   260,   261,   262,   702,    729, 
742,    745,   765,   782,   792,   794, 

796,  918 
Schultz  V.  Strauss.  127  Wis. 
.325,  7  Ann,  Cas,  .528,  106  X, 

W,  1066  181 

Schuylkill    River    Road,    20    Pa, 

Co".  Ct,  559   385. 

Schwartz  v,  JeniU'v,  21  Hun   (X, 

Y,)    33   .; 994 

v.  State,  (Miss.)   6i)  So.  732     146 
Scliwarzkopf,  Re,  116   .\])p,  Div. 

930,  131  X.  Y.  S.  3S5    1219' 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxxv 


[References 

Sfiolaro  v.  Ascli.  137  App.  Div. 
667,  122  N.  Y.  S.  518,  137 
App.  Div.   946,  126   N.   Y.   S. 

1151   1051 

Scobey  v.  Ro.ss,  5  Iiul.  445.  .();)7. 

733,   702,  910,     951 
Scoparin,    Re,    5    Sawv.    549,    21 

Fed.   Cas.   No.    12,511    979 

Scotch  Liiml)er  Co.  v.  Sa^e,  132 
Ala.  598.  32  So.  607,  90  Am. 

St.  Rep.  932    268,     270 

Scott,   Re,   96   Fed.   607,   2    Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.    324    825 

V.  Atchison,  38  Tex.  384   .  .      394 

V.  Aultman     Co.,     211     111. 

012,  71  N.  E.  1112,  103 

Am.    St.    Rep.    215,    af- 

fii-ming    113    III.    App. 

581    187,     205 

V.  Carl,   24    Pa.   Super.    Ct. 

460 757 

V.  Chambers,  62  Mich.  532, 

29   N.   W.  94    485 

V.  Craig,  1  Wend.    (N.  Y.) 

35   126 

V.  Darlev,  89  Ind.  477   897 

V.  Darling,   66  Vt.   510,   29 

Atl.  993    838,     839 

V.  Elmendorf,  12  Johns.  (N. 

Y.)    315    452,     862 

V.  Harmon,   109  Mass.  237, 

12   Am.  Rep.  685    

662,   669,     730 

V.  Harris,  113  111.  447 

208,     221 
V.  Hayes,   162   Ind.  548,   70 

N.  E.  879    856 

V.  Hoxsie,  13  Vt.  50  .  .  710,     900 
V.  Ives,  22  Misc.  749,  51  N. 

Y.  S.  49    211 

V.  Kirchbanm.  47  Neb.  331, 

66  N.  W.  443 603 

V.  Kirschheimer.     47     Neb. 

331,  66  N.  W.  443 529 

V.  Lance,  21  Vt.  507 600 

V.  Larkin,  13  Vt.  112  420 

V.  Marlev.  124  Tenn.  388, 

137  S.  W.  492 847 

V.  Morris,  131  111.  App.  605 

869,  870,  971,   973,  1036 
V.  New  York,   etc.,   Co.,   79 
N.   J.   L.   231.   75    Atl. 

772    764,  780,     895 

V.  Seller,    5    Watts     (Pa.) 

235   411 

V,  State,  2  Md.  284   .  .   363,     572 


are  to  pages.] 

Scott  V.  State,  6  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

343,  25  S.  W.   377 1277' 

V.  State,  86  Tex.  321,  24  S. 

W.   7«9    1282^ 

V.  Van     Alstvne,    9    Johns. 
(N.   Y.)'216    ..    9,   10, 

114,  115,  1167' 
V.  Wickliffo,      1      B.     Mon. 
(Ky.)   353   ..   2r<6.  303, 

595,     608- 
Scott    Grocer    Co.    v.    Kelly,    14 
Tex.  Civ.  App.   136,  36 

S.  W.  140   633 

Scotten   V.    Longfellow,   40    Ind. 

24   641 

Scottish  American  Mortg.  Co.  v. 
Clownev,  70  S.  C.  229.  3  Ann. 

Cas.  437,  49  S.  E.  56:) 267 

Scouten's  Appeal,  186  Pa.  St. 
270,  42  W.  N.  C.  227,  40  Atl. 

481    1192,  1197 

Scoville   V.   School   Trustees,   65 

111.   523 799 

Scrace  v.  Whittington,  2  B.  &  C. 

11,  9  E.  C.  L.  7    700,     709 

Scranton  v.  Stewart.  52  Ind.  68 

177,  185 
Scribner  v.  Parcells.  20  Ont.  554  538 
Scrivani  v.  Dondero,  128  Cal.  31. 

60  Pac.  463 643 

Seroggin     v.     Hammett     Grocer 

Co.,  66  Ark.  183.  49  S.  W.  820     561 
Scrooi)'s     Case,     Freem.    K.     B. 

(Eng.)  276 139 

Scullv  V.  Book,  3  Wash.  182,  28 

Pac.  556    357 

Seaboard   Air   Line    R.    Co.    v. 
Parker,    (Fla.)    62   So. 

589     226 

V.  Soutliern  Investment  Co., 
53    Fla.    832,    13    Ann. 
Cas.  18,  44  So.  351    .  .      460 
Seabridge  v.  McAdam.  119  Cal. 

460,  51  Pac.  691    646 

Seale    v.    McLaughlin,    28    Cal. 

668 439 

Searl  v.  Searl,  122  111.  App.  129     847 
Sears,  Re.  33  Misc.  141,  68  N.  Y. 

S.   363    211 

v.  Collie,   148  Ky.  444,  146 

S.  W.  1117  ' 991 

v.  Swenson.  22  S.  D.  74,  115 

N.  W.  519    907 

Seasongood  v.  Prager,  146  App. 
Div.  833,  131  N.  Y.  S.  771,  re- 
versing 70  Misc.  490,  127  N. 
Y .  S.  482   793,     799" 


<?CXXV1 


TABLE    OF    C.VSES. 


[References 

Seaton      v.      Cordrav,      Wright 

(Ohio)    102    527 

V.  Polk  Countv,  50  la.  626, 

13  N.  W."725 1102 

Seay  v.  Greenwood,  21  Ala.  4!)1     858 
Sebald  v.  Citizen.s'  Deposit  Bank, 
105    S.    W.    130,    31    Kv.    L. 

Rep.  1244  '  269,  270 

.Sebastian  v.  Cheney,  86  Tex. 

502,  25  S.  W.  692  .  .   634 
V.  Rose,  135  Kv.  197,  122  S. 
W.  120  .  .' .  .  377,  378, 

383,  396,  39!)  400 
Sebree  v.  Sebree,  (Kv.)  99  S.  W. 

282  '. 384 

Seeombe,   Ex  p.,   19  How.  9,  15 
U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   565   ..    31,  32, 

33,  1168,  1172,  1330 
Second   Street,   1    Del.   Co.   Rep. 

(Pa.)   413   987 

Secor  V.  Bell,  18  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 

52 115 

V.  Tradesmen's   Nat.    Bank, 
148  App.  Div.  141,  133 

N.  Y.  S.  197 595 

Securitv  L.  &  T.  Co.  v.  Estudello, 

134  Cal.  166,  66  Pac.  257 

216   494 

Sedgwick  v.  Bliss,  23  Neb.  617, 
37   N.   W.   483    ..    710, 

711,     900 
V.  Stanton,  14  N.  Y.  289.  . 
654,  655,  657.  658,  659, 

663,     674 
"Sedley    v.    Sutherland,    3    Esp. 

(Eng.)  202 527 

Seelev  v.  Crane,  15  N.  J.  L.  35     704 

V.  North,  16  Conn.  92 882 

Seeligson  v.  Gifford.  46  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  566,  103  S.  W.  416 458 

Segars  v.   Segars,  76  Me.   96.  .  .      467 
Segee  v.  Thoma.s.  3  Blatchf.  11, 

21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,633    468 

Seiferd   v.  Meyer,  93   App.   Div. 

615,  87  N.  Y.  S.  636 559 

Seip,    Re,    163    Pa.    St.    423,    30 
Atl.    226,    43    Am.    St.     I^-p. 

803    184,     185 

Seisner  v.  Blake,  13  I'a.  Co.  Ct. 

333   1009 

•Selden  v.  State,  74  Wis.  271.  42 
N.   W.  218,   17   Am.  St.    Uop. 

144     157.     17S,     203 

Scl.inii    V.    Wild.',     |l!)l(i|    2     K. 

B.  9,  79  L.  .1.   K.   v..  (iil    537 

:S,.il..<-k    V.    Ilciid,    77    Conn,    15. 

58  Atl.  224   132G 


are  to  pages.] 

Sellers  v.  Phillips,  37  111.  App. 

74 104 

Selover  v.  Bryant,  54  Minn.  434, 
56  N.  W.  .58,  40  Am.  St.  Rep. 

349,  21   L.R.A.  418    781, 

787,  790,     925 

Selz  v.  Belden,  48  la.  451    858 

V.  Guthman,    62    111.    App. 

624   531 

Semmes  v.  Western  Union  Tel. 

Co.,  73  Md.  9,  20  Atl.  127   .  .      807 
Semonin  v.  Duerson,   13  Ky.  L. 

Rep.  169   267 

Semple  v.  Atkinson,  64  Mo.  504 

378,     384 
Senftner  v.  Kleinhans.  80  Misc. 

519,  141  N.  Y.  S.  533    864 

Senn  v.  Joseph,  106  Ala.  454,  17 

So.  543  383,  400,  479 

Senneff  v.  Healy,    (la.)    135   N. 

W.  27 .' 827 

Sensenev  v.  Repp,  94  Md.  77,  50 

Atl.  416  718 

Serat  v.  Smith,  61   Hun  36,  15 

N.  Y.  S.  330 726,  768, 

769,     962 
Serfass.  Re.  2  Pa.  Co.  Ct.,  6  49, 
116   Pa.   St.   455,   9  Atl.   674, 

19  W.  N.  C.  476 1169, 

1237,  1241,  1294 
Serwer  v.  Serwer,  91  App.  Div. 

538,  86  N.  Y.  S.  838   .  .   1030,  1067 
Sessions   v.    Palmeter,    75    Hun 
268,  26   N.   Y.  S.   1076 

870,     912 
V.  Warwick,  46  Wash.  165, 

89  Pac.  482 794, 

881,     883 
Setzar  v.  Wilson,  26  N.  C.  501.  .      197 
Seventh  Ave.  Meat  &  Provision 
Co.  V.  Del   Favero,   123  N.  Y. 

S.  46 1079 

Seventh  Day  Adventists  General 
Conf.  Ass'n  v.  Michigan  Sani- 
tiirium.  etc.,  Ass'n,  166  Mich. 

504,  132  N.  W.  94 336 

Severance  v.  Bizallion,  67  Misc. 

103,  121   N.  Y.  S.  627    ..    233,     705 
Sevier  v.  Ilollidav,  2  Ark.  512.. 

582,   59],     592 
Sexton  V.   Bradley,  110  111.  App. 

495     .  .  "873,    936,    940,     961 
v.    I'ike.  13  Ark.  193.  .1030. 

1051,   1062 
V.  'Jodd,  Wrigiit  (Oliio)  316     851 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxxvu 


[References 

Seybcrt  v.   Salom   Twp.,   22    I'a. 

Super.  Ct.  459    702,  SG!), 

872,  875,  078.  1022 
Seymour,  Re,  76  Misc.  o71,  ll>C 

N.  Y.  S.  042 211 

V.  Cacr^er,  13  Hun    (X.  Y.) 

29    584.  801,     947 

V.  Ellison,  2  Cow.    ( N.  Y.) 

13 16 

Shackelford,     McElhinnev,     241 

Mo.  592,  145  S.  W.  1139 

1166,  1281,  1302,  1324 
Shackleton  v.  Hart,  20  How.  Pr. 
<N.  Y.)    39,  12  Abb.  Pr.   325 

note   1033,  1036,  1086 

Shaffer  v.  ^Nlink,  60  la.  754,  14 

N,  W.  726    194 

Shaffner  v.  Healy,  57  111.  App. 

90 .' 774 

Shaft  V.  Phoenix  Mut.  Life  Ins. 
Co.,  67  N.  Y.  544,  23  Am.  Rep. 

138  450 

Shain  v.  Forbes,  82  Cal.  577,  23 

Pac.  198    885 

Shainwald  v.  Davids,  69  Fed.  . . 

701   465 

Shakespeare   v.    Boughraan,    113 
Mich.   551,   71   N.   W.   874,   4 

Detroit  Leg.  N.  392 944 

Shamroth,    Re,    148    App.    Div. 

828,  133  X.  Y.  S.  514  .  .  1212,  1227 
Shanhoitzer    v.     Thompson.     24 
Okla.   108,   103  Pac.  595,  138 

Am.  St.  Rep.  877   131 

Shanklin    v.    Meyler,    5    Kv.    L. 

Rep.    296    .  .  .'. ' 302 

Shanley,  Re,  57  Misc.  8,  107  X. 
Y.  S.  913,  modified  124 
App.   Div.   935,   109   X^^. 

Y.   S.   434    552,     862 

V.  McManus,  124  App.  Div. 
935,  109  X.  Y.  S.  434, 
modifying   57    Misc.    8, 

107  X\  Y.  S.  913   

603,     622 
Shannon  v.  Simms,  146  Ala.  673, 

40  So.  574    632 

Shapley  v.  Bellows,  4  X^.  H.  347 

664, '671,  674,  983,  988,  990,  1055 
Sharman  v.  Morton,  31  Ga.  .34.  .  330 
Sharon  v.  Sharon,  75  Cal.  1,  16 

Pac.   345    759 

V.  Sharon,    79   Cal.   633.   22 

Pac.  26,   ]:n    165, 

175.   187.   193,     194 
Sharp  V.  Barker,  11  Kan.  381  .  .      773 


are  to  pages.] 

Sharp  V.  Fields,  5   Lea    (Tenn.) 

326 537,  539,  993,  1026 

V.  Kirkendall,       2       .1.      J. 

JIarsh.   (Kv.)    150 1162 

V.  Moflitt,  94  i'iid.  240 562 

Sharpe  v.  Allen,  11  Lea   (Tenn.) 

518    249,  805.   1041 

V.  Jolinston,   59   Mo.   557..      637 
v.  Williams,  41  Kan.  56,  20 

Pac.  497    408 

Sliartzer  v.  ^fountain  Lake  Park 
Assoc,   86    Md.    335,    37    Atl. 

786   267 

Shattuck  V.   Bill.  142  Mass.  56, 

7  N.  E.  39 14,  503, 

522,     531 

V.  State,   11   Ind.  473    1112 

Shaughnessy    v.    Fogg,    15    La. 
Ann.  330  .  .  157,  195,  216,  217, 

218,     327 
Shaunessv  v.  Traphagen,   13  N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  754 503,  505, 

1015,  1033 
Shaw  V.  Bill,  95  U.  S.  10,  24 

U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  333  ..   311 
V.  Kidder,  2  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Y.)  243  384 

V.  Martin,    20    Idaho    168, 

117  Pac.  853    8.52 

V.  Neale,     6     H.     L.     Cas. 

(Eng.)  591 720 

V.  Ormiston,     2     Ont.     Pr. 

152   538 

V.  Threadgill,  53   Tex.   Civ. 
App.    254,    115    S.    W. 

071     732,    911,     943 

Shawmut  Min.  Co.,  Re,  94  App. 
Div.  156,  87  N.  Y.  S.  1059   .  . 

155,     217 
Shay,    Re,    133    App.    Div.    547, 
188    X.    Y.    S.    146,    affirmed 
196  X.  Y.  530,  89  X.  E.  1112 

16,  1255,  1303,  1318,  1319 
Shea  V.  Cloquet  Lumber  Co..  92 
Minn.    348.   1    Ann.   Cas.    930, 

100  X.  W.  Ill 632,     646 

Shean    v.    Philips,    1    F.    &    F. 

(Eng.)     449    175 

Sheedy    v.    McMurtv,    44    X^eb. 

499,  63  X.  W.  21 " 1050 

Sheehan,  Re,  141  App.  Div.  510, 

126  X.   Y.  S.  200    1225 

V.  Allen,    67    Kan.    712,    74 

Pac.  245   171,     188 

V.  Erbe,   77  App.  Div.   176, 

79  N.  Y.  S.  43 283 


CCXXVIU 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Sheehan  v.  Erbe.   103  Apj).  Div. 
7,  02  X. Y.  S.  8G2. .234, 

274.    284,    285,     295 
V.  Farwell,    135    Mich.    19t5, 

97  N.  W.  728 313 

Shechv  V.  Duffy,  89   Wis.  G.  61 

N.   W.  295    .\ 765 

Sheetz  v.  Whitaker,  7  W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)    570    431 

Sheffer  v.   B.   B.   Terkins  &    Co. 
83    Vt.    185,    75     Atl.     6,     25 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    1313    459 

Sheil     V.     Muir,     51     Hun     644 

mem.,  4  N.  Y.  S.  272    869 

Sheldon  v.  Gumming.  1  Cow.  (N. 

Y.)     168 10 

V.  Mott,  84  Hun  608  mem., 

32  N.  Y.  S.  667 266 

V,  Risedorph,  23  Minn.,  518 

267,     505 
Shelger  v.  Gooding,  47  N.  C.  175 

119,     121 
Shelton    v.    Franklin,    224    Mo. 
342,    123    S.    W.    1084, 
135   Am.   St.   Rep.   537     667 

V.  Gill.  11  Ohio  417   773 

V.  Northern  Texas  Traction 
Co.,  32  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

.507,  75  S.  W.  338 224 

V.  Pendleton,   18  Conn.  417     906 
V.  State,     1     Stew.     &     P. 

f  Ala.)    208    1120,  1122 

V.  Tiffin.  6  How.  163,  12  U. 
S.   (L.  ed.)   387   ..   415, 

427,  440,  442,  446,     517 
Shepard,  Re,  109  Mich.  631,  67 

N.  W.  971   1173,  1231, 

1283.  1305,  1313 
Shepherd  v.  Crawford,  71  Ga. 

458  599,  601,  602 

V.  Dickson,  38  La.  Ann.  741     733 
V.  Mackoul,        3        Campb. 

(Eng.)   326 905 

V.  Cook,   3  N.   C.   241    461 

Sherburne  v.    Rodman,   51    Wis. 

474,  8  N.  W.  414    648 

Slieren    v.    Eastwood.    27    S.    D. 

312.  131    X.  W.  287    140 

Slien  r  v.  Price,  2  Oliio  Cir.  Dec. 

61.  3  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  107    906 

Shi-iidari   V.  (U'Ui't.   12    Ilun   660. 

■162,  4()3,  543     54  t 
V.   Houghton,  6  .Abb.  X.  Cas. 

23-1.    16   Hun    628    212 

Sheridan    Coiititv    v.    Hiiiuiii.    9 

Wyo.  308,  63'Pac.  1054    2;!S 


are  to  pages.] 

Slieriff  V.  Bradshaw,  1  Cro.  Eliz. 

(Eng.)    53    588' 

Slieriff  of  Kent,   Re,  2  C.  &  K. 

i97,  61  E.  C.  L.  197  115. 

Sherin,  Re.  27  S.  D.  2.32.  Ann. 
Cas.  19]  3D  440,  130  N. 
W.   761,   40   L.R.A. 

(N.S.)  801  1272, 

1300,  1308,  1317' 

Re,  28  S.  D.  420,  133  N.  W. 

701,  modifying  27  S.  D. 

232,    Ann.'  Cas.    1913D 

446,  130  N.  W.  761    .. 

1267,  1321 
Sherley    v.    Riggs,    11    Humph. 

(Tenn.)    53    ..    656,  660,  663,     674 
Sherman  v.  Brenner,  1  W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)   193   493' 

V.  Scott.  27  Hun  331 

184,   185.     328 

V.  State,  4  Kan.  493 129 

V.  State,   4   Kan.   570    .... 

128,     130 
Sherrard  v.  >fevius,  2  Ind.  241, 

52   Am.   Dec.  508    446 

Sherrill    v.    Weisiger    Clothing 
Co.,  114  N.   C.  436,  19   S.  E. 

365    ^ 359,     360 

Sherry   v.   Oceanic   Steam   Nay. 

Co.,"^  72  Fed.  565 1009 

Sherwin  y.   Maben,   78   la.  467, 

43   N.   W.   292    905,     COS 

Sherwood  y.  Buffalo  &  X"ew  York 
City  R.  Co..  12  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  136  ..  838,  1030- 
V.  Powell,  61  Minn.  479,  63 
X.  W.  1103,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.  614,  29  L.R.A.  153 

533,     535 
y.  Saratoga,    etc.,     R.     Co., 
15    Barb.    (N.   Y.)    650 

309,     315 
Sheyalier  v.  Doyle.  88  Neb.  560, 

130  X.  W.  417    793. 

Sliiih'lcr     V.     Fisher,     13     Colo. 

App.   10(1,  57   Pac.  864    ..266,     268 
Shiebler.    Re.    163    Fed.    545,    20 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  777 826,     827 

SbicI      V.     Muir.     ."■)!      IIuii     644 

nil m.,   4    N.    V.   S.   272    924 

Sliilcock  y.  Passman,  7  ('.  &    P. 

289,  32  E.  C.  L.  512 457.     554 

Slii|iiiiaii   y.    lla\ncs,    15    \/.\.   'M't'.l 

341,  348,     349- 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


CCXXIX 


[References 

Shirk  V.  Xoible,  156  Ind.  60,  59 
N.    E.   281,   83    Am.    St.    Rop. 

150    740,  742,   747,   74S, 

883.  91!) 
Shirley  v.  Walker,  31  Me.  541  .  .  338 
Shirts  V.  Rooker,  21   Ind.  App. 

420,  52  N.  E.  629.  .8.35,     875 
Shoemaker,  Re,  2  Pa.  Super  Ct. 
27,    38    W.    N.    C.    414, 
affirming    5    Pa.    Dist. 
Ct.  161,  38  W.  N.  C.  54 

1239,   1275,   1297,  1318 
V.  Smith,  80  la.  655,  45  N. 

W.    744    308,     317 

V.  Stiles.    102    Pa.    St.    549.. 602 
Shoemaker    Co.    v.    Munsey,    37 

App.  Cas.    (D.  C.)    95    350 

Sholine  v.  Harris,  22  Colo.  App. 

63,    123    Pac.    330    224.     327 

Shore  v.  Bedford,  5  M.  &  G.  271, 
44  E.  C.  L.  149,  12  L.  J.  C. 

PI.  138 183 

Shores  v.  Brooks,  81  Ga.  468,  8 
S.   E.   429,   12  Am.   St. 

Rep.  332   639 

V.  Caswell,  13  Mete. 

(Mass.)        413 411 

Short  V.  M'Carthv,  3  B.  &  Aid. 

626,  5  E.  ('.  L.'  403    588 

Shortz  V.  Rnttii?er,  249  111.  494, 

94  N.  E.  181" 848 

Shotwell  V.  Dixon,  66  App.  Div. 

123,  72  N.  Y.  S.  668 528 

Shoup  V.  Snepp,  22  Ind.  App. 

30,  53  N.  E.  189  777 

Shove  V.  Martine,  85  Minn.  29, 

88  N.  W.  254,  412 184 

Shows  V.   Pendry,   93   Ala.  248, 

9  So.  462 851 

Shreve  v.  Freeman,  44  X.  J.  L. 

78 843 

Shricker  v.   Field,  9  la.  366    .  .      626 
Shropshire  v.  Ryan,  111  fa.  677, 

82  N.  W.  1035 273.  283,     602 

Shroudenheek  v.  Phoenix  F.  Ins. 

Co.,  15  Wis.  6.32 418 

Sh\ick    V.    Pfenninghausen,    101 
Mo.  App.  697.  74  S.  W.  381  .  . 

462,  671.  804,  809,     961 
Shular  v.   State,   105   Ind.   289, 

4  N.  E.  870,  55  Am.  Rep.  211   1102 
Shuler  v.  Maxwell,  38  Hun  240, 

affirmed    101    N.   Y.   657    258 

Shull.  Re.  25  S.  D.  602,  127  X. 

W.  541 1174 

Sliiiniwav  V.  Stillman,  0  Wend. 

(X.  Y'.)   447   446 


are  to  pages.] 

Sibley  V.  Alba.  95  Ala.  198,  10 

So.  831 685 

V.  Pine    County.    31    Minn. 

201,  17  N.'W.  337 1006 

V.  Rice,  58  Xeb.  785,  79  X. 

W.   711    864 

V.  Waffle.   10  X.  Y.  180    ..      172 
Sickles   V.    Klin<r.   00   App.   Diy. 

5] 5,  69  X.  Y.'  S.  944 119 

Sickman    y.    Wollett.    31    Colo. 

58,   71   Pac.   1107 854 

Sidawav  y.  Jones,  125  Tenn.  .322, 

143  S.  W.  893 1010.  1012,  1013 

Siddall  V.  Haight,  132  Cal.  320, 

64  Pac.  410  568 

Sidny  v.  Ranger,  12  Sim  (Eng.) 

118 ; 295 

Siebert  v.   State,   95  Ind.  471.. 

1106.  1107 
Siegel  y.  Haneliett.  33  111.  App. 

634 779,     902 

Sierra    Madre    Constr.    Co.    v. 

Brick.   (Tex.)   55  S.  W.  .521..      336 
Silkman,  Re,  88  App.  Diy.  104, 
84   X.   Y.    S.    1025 .... 

1168,  1257 
V.  Borger,    4    E.    D.    Smith 

(X.  Y.)    236    417, 

422,    431,     436 
Sill  V.  Thomas.  8  C.  &  P.  762, 

34  E.  C.  L.  624    945 

Silverman,    Re.    97    Fed.    325,    3 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  227 .  .      822 
y.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  141 
Fed."  382    ..    237.    254, 

261.    203.    797.     806 
Silvernail.   Re.   45   Hun  575,   10 
X.    Y.    St.    Rep.   588    .  .    603. 

609,     622 
Silvis  v.  Ely,  3  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.) 

420 " 252,  508,     509 

Simes   v.   Gibbs,   2  Jur.    (Eng.) 
418,  6  Dowl.  310,  1  W.  W.  & 

H.  40 621 

Simington  v.  Kent.  8  Ala.  691.  .      469 
Simmons.  Re,  48  Misc.   484,   96 

X.   Y.   S.    1103    206 

Re,  15  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.)  348  107 
v.  Almy,  103  Mass.  33  .  . 

804,  1040 
y.  Davenport.  140  X.  C. 

407.  53  S.  E.  225. .781,  903 
v.  Gardner,  46  Wash.  282, 

89  Pac.  887  637,  646 

v.  Jacobs,  52  Me.  147  430 


ccxxx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Simmons     v.     Liberal     Opinion 
Limited,  [1911]  1  K.  P.. 
966.   21   Ann.   Cas.   876     538 
V.  Sharp,  2  Ala.   App.   385. 

56  So.  849    851 

V.  Eose.    31    Beav.     (Enjj.) 

1   521 

V.  State.    12    Mo.    208,    49 

Am.  Dec.  131   .  .  96,  97,       99 
V.  State,  4  Okla,  Crim.  490, 
114    Pac.    752,   denying 
rehearing    in    4    Okla. 
Crim.  489,  112  Pac.  .35 

1190,  1207 
V.  Terrell,   75  Tex.  275,   12 

S.   W.    854    778 

Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  Kauf- 
man,   77    Tex.    131.    8    S.    W. 

283 176 

Simms  v.  Floyd,  65  Ga.  719  .... 

889.   896,   898     903 
Simon  v.  Brashear.  9  Rob.  (La.) 

59,  41  Am.  Dec.  321    .  .      914 
V.  Haifleigh,    21    La.    Ann. 

607       773 

Simonin  v.  Czarnowski,  47  La. 

Ann.  1334,  17  So.  847  439 

Simonton   v.   Barrel!.   21   Wend. 

(N.  Y.)    362    411 

V.  State,    44    Fla.    289,    31 

So.    821     1093 

V.  Yongue.  3  Strobh.  L.   (S. 

C.)     538    329 

Simpkins  v.  Page,  1  Code  (X. 

Y.)  107  503 

Simpson,  Re,  (N.  J.)  82  Atl. 

507  1211 

V.  Re,  53  Hun  629,  mem., 

5  N.  Y.  S.  863  956 

Re,  167  X.  Y.  403,  60  X. 

E.  747  58 

Re,  9  X.  D.  379,  83  X.  W. 
541,  1169.  12]!,  1215. 
1216.  1219.  1220.  1257 

1266,  1310 
Re,  11  X.  1).  526.  93  X.  W. 

91S  1332,  133:!, 

1334,  1335.  1339 
V.  Brown,  1  Wash.  Tex.  248  458 
V.  Knight.  12  Fla.  144  .  .  356 
V.  Lonil»as,  14  La.  Ann.  10,"! 

455,  4  (in.   505 
V.  I'lnkerlon.  10  W.  X.  C. 

(I'a.l  423  839 

Sinirall  v.  .Mf.rfon,  12  S.  W.  1S5. 
12  Kv.  L.   K.-p.  .■'.!         .  . 

733,      799 


are  to  pages.] 

Simrall  v.  Morton.  6  Ky.  L.  Rep. 

735    ". 915 

Sims  V.  Brown.  6  Thonip.  &   C. 

(X.  Y.)    5    528,     575 

V.  Brutton,  5  Exch.   (Eng.) 

802,  20  L.  J.  Exch.  41  .521 
V.  Com.,  116  Ky.  1,  74  S. 
W.  1097,  25  Ky.  L. 

Rep.    282    ."1148,  1150 

Sinclair    v.    Higgins.    Ill    App. 
Div.  206,   97   X.   Y.   S. 

415   600 

V.  Sanford,  7  Paige  (X.  Y.) 

432  470 

Singer,    Re,    156    App.    Div.    85, 

141    X.    Y.    S.   74    ...  .    1249 
V.  Sheldon.    56    la.    3.54,    9 

X.   W.  298    155 

V.  Steele.    125    111.    426,    17 

X.  E.  751    768 

V.  Steele,  24  111.  App.  58.  . 

521.  591,  712     947 
Singo  V.  Brainard,  173  Ala.  64, 

55  So.  603 302 

Skaggs  V.  Hill,   (Ky.)   14  S.  W. 

363 ." 1047,  1049 

V.  Hines,  5  Kv.  L.  Rep.  106  1033 
Skellie  v.  James,  81  Ga.  419,  8 

S.  E.  607    171,  193,     330 

Skellv,    Re,   21    S.   D.   424,    113 

X.'^W\    91     482 

Skidmore  v.  Bricker.  77  111.  167     637 
Skillen  v.  Wallace,  36  Ind.  319 

566,     583 
Skillings  v.   Boyd,   10  Me.  43..      541 
Skinner  v.  Busse.  38  Misc.  265, 
11  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  156,  77  X. 

Y.  S.  560 882,  1026.   1082 

Slade  v.  Zeitfuss,  77  Conn.  457 

59   Atl.   406    676.   678.     680 

Slater  v.  Merritt.  75  X.  Y.  268  1205 
v.  Mexican  Xat.  R.  Co.,  194 
U.  S.  120,  24  S.  Ct. 
581,  48  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
900,  affirming  115  Fed. 
593,  53  C.  C.  A.  239.  .  .336 
V.  Sunderland.  33  L.  J.  Q. 
15.    (Knrr.)    .-^j.   9   L.  T. 

X.  S.  422 977 

v.  Walter,    148    Mich.    650, 

112  X.  W.  682    .  .    6:52,     637 
Slaiighter-Ilouse  Cases.  16  Wall. 

36,  21    U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    394    .  .        40 
Siavton  V.  Rogers.  128  Kv.  106, 
107  S.  W.  696,  32  Kv.  L.  Rep. 

897     ; 1118 

Sleeper    v.    SleejHT.      1      llandv 

(Oh.)    530,  531    318,     417 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXl 


[Reforeiiccs 

Sloiirht  V.  Lcavonwortli.  5  Diier 

(X.  Y.)    122    r)23,  .")2:),     .")32 

Slemmcr  v.  Wright.  4(i  la.  70").  . 

1282.    1304 
V.  Wrif,'lit.  54  la.  164,  (!  \. 

W.    181 1210.    1212.  1218 

Sloan,   Re,    IGl    Pa.   St.  237,   28 

Atl.    10S4    045 

V.  Johnson,  14  Smcdos  >t  i\r. 
(Miss.)  47  .  .   609.  614, 

617.     623 
V.  Smith,      77      Conn.      713 

mem..    58    Atl.    712    ..      990 
V.  Wherry,  51  Xeb.  703,  71 

N.  W.   744    157 

V.  Williams,  138  111.  43.  27 
N.    E.    531,    12    L.R.A. 

496     372 

Sloan's  Estate,   14   Pa.   Co.   Ct. 

359  740 

Sloane  v.  Anderson,  57  Wis.  123, 

13  N.  W.  684,  15  N.  W.  21.  .      460 
Slocum  V.  Newbv,  5  N.  C.  423     328 
V.  Weir.    3  'How.    Pr.     (N. 
Y.)    397,   1    Code   Rep. 

105 28 

Sloo  V.  Law,  4  Blatchf.  268.  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.   12.958    ..    237, 

253.   259,   261,   263,     796 
Sloss-Sheffield  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
O'Neal,    169    Ala.    S3,    52    So. 

953   638,  639,     642 

Small   V.   Chicago,   etc.,   R.   Co., 

55  la.  582,  8^N.  W.  437   685 

Smalley  v.  Clark,  22  Vt.  598..    1024 
V.  Greene,  52  la.  241,  3  N. 
W.    78.    35    Am.    Rep. 

267    371,     373 

V.  Soragen,  30  Vt.  2  .  .  582, 

600,     607 
Smallwood    v.    Norton,    20    Me. 

83,  37  Am.  Dec.  39 521, 

569,    570,    586,    591,     592 
Smart  v.  N.  C.  Lodge  No.  2,  27 
Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  273..  176, 

187,     195 
Smedes   v.    Elmendorf.    3    Johns 

(N.  Y.)    185 570,     593 

Smedley   v.    DreErge,    101    INIicli. 

200,  59'N.  W.  411 

678,     679 
V.  Grand  Haven,  125  ]Mich. 
424.    84    N.   W.    626.    7 
Detroit    Leg.     (N.    S.) 
586    873,     910 


are  to  pages.] 

Smedlev    v.    Sowle,    125    Mich. 

192,    84    N.    W.    03.    7 

Detroit  Leg.  N.  550.  .  .      134 

Snu'lker  v.  Chicago  &  N.  W.  R. 

Co..   106  Wis.    135.  81   N.  W. 

r94    DOS,    1075,    1077,  1081 

Smick  V.  Beswick.  113  Kv.  439, 

68  S.  W.  439   ■ 183 

Sniidt  V.   Dessar.   13  Misc.   254, 
34  N.  Y.  S.  158,  68  N.  Y.  St. 

Rep.  205   726,     910 

Smilcv  V.  Meir,  47  Ind.  559  .... 

779,     876 
V.  U.      S.      Building,      etc., 
Assoc,  62  S.  W.  853,  23 

Kv.  L.   Rep.   250    396 

Smith,  Ex  p.,  28  Ind.  47 

1170.   1196,  1302 
V.  Re,  73  Kan.  743.  85  Pac. 

584   1170,  1171, 

1186,  1262,  1273,  1289, 

1290.  1299,  1304,  1306 
Re,  61  Hun  101,  15  N.  Y. 

S.  425  212 

Re,  95  N.  Y^  523  289 

Re,  111  App.  Div.  23.  35 
Civ.  Proc.  314,  97  N.  Y. 

S.  171  1018,  1037 

Re,  148  App.  Div.  291.  132 
N.  Y.  S.  304  ..  1219, 

1226.  1237 
Re.  2  Lack.  Leg.  N.  (Pa.) 

152  1177.  1201.  1307 

Re,  179  Pa.  St.  22.  36  Atl. 

134 1169,  1193, 

1307,  1317 
Re,  108  Fed.  39,  5  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  559  .  .819,  822 
Re,  2  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  648  819 
Re,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  39   62 
V.  Acker  Process  Co..  102 
App.  Div.  170.  92  N.  Y. 

S.  351  1067,  1079 

v.  Alexander,  80  Ala.  251  246 
v.  Alexander.  87  Ala.  387,  6 

So.  51  607 

v.    Austin,  49  Mich.  286,  13 

N.  W.   593    646 

V.  Barnes,   9   Misc.   368.   29 

N.  Y.  S.  692    488 

V.  Black.  51  Md.  247  232 

V.  Board,  21  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

213.  51  S.  W.  520 777 

V.  Bossard,  2  McCord  Eq. 

406 489 


•ccxxxu 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


.Smith 


[References 

V.     Ijowditeh,     7     Pick. 

(Mass.)    137    420, 

444,     518 
Bradhiirst,  IcS  Misc.  546, 

41    X.    Y.    S.    1002,   af- 
firmed 31  App.  Div.  98, 

52  N.  Y.  S.  527    .  .    346,  384 
Brittenham,  109  111.  540 

287,     325 
Brotherline,    62    Pa.    St. 

461    295,     299 

Buller,     L.     R.     19     Eq. 

(Eng.)    473    694 

Biisli.   58    Ga.    121     623 

Caldwell,   22   Mont.   331, 

56   Pac.  590    155,     180 

Cayuga      Lake      Cement 

Co.,  107  App.  Div.  524, 

95  N.  Y.  S.  236 1055 

Clienowetli.  11  Civ.  Proc. 

138,   3   N.   Y.   St.   Rep. 

265   1055 

Clienoweth,  14  Daly  166, 

6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  "232 . .    1055 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  56 

la.  720,  10  N.  W.  244 

996,  1001,  1014,  1016 
Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  60 

la.  515,  15  N.  W.  291 

754,  789.  926.  951  1217 

Clarke,  9  la.  241  530 

Com.,  1  S.  W.  433,  8  Ky. 

L.  Rep.  260 1324 

Cook.  39  Ga.  191  629 

Couch.  117  Mo.  App.  267, 

92  S.  W.  1143.. 791, 

923,  926,  930,  964 
Craft,  58  S.  W.  500.  22 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  643.. 301,  306 
Crego,  54  Hun  22.  7  N. 

Y.  S.  86  222,  225 

Cunningham,      59      Kan. 

552,  53   Pac.  760.. 2.50, 

468,  502.     504 
Davis,   45   N.   IT.   566    .  . 

701,  781,  862,  905,     906 
Dixon,    3     Mete.     (Ky.) 

438    .  .    383,    399,    400. 

4S7,     489 
Doiigiicrf y,  37  Vt.  530  .  . 

SSll.      S!)8 
Eastern  I'-hlg.,         etc. 

Akhoc,    116    N.    C.    73, 

74.  20  S.  K.  963   .  .  634.     636 
Evans.    110   <Ia.    53(;,    :!5 

S.  !•;.  (i.;:: 1050 


are  to  pages.] 

Smith  V.  Fields,  139  Ky.  60,  129 

S.    W.    325,    .30    L.R.A. 

(N.S.)     870    643,     648 

V.  Fouche.  55  Ga.  120 561 

V.  Fox,  6  Hare  (Eng.)  386, 

12  Jur.  130  588 

V.  Funk,  114  Minn.  307,  131 

N.  W.  377   435 

V.  Gayle,  58  Ala.  600  506 

V.  Glvnn,  144  S.  W.  149  . .   636 

y.  Goode,  29  Ga.  185  

1033,  1062 
V.  Hayes,  10  App.  Div.  245, 

41  N.  Y.  S.  954,  75  N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  1328   921 

V.  Hill,    13    Ark.    173,    174 

321,  322,  323,  324,  801, 

832,     836 

V.  Hill,  45  X.  IT.  403    468 

V.  Hoctor,  51  Misc.  649,  99 

N.  Y.  S.  843    936,     946 

V.  Hogan,   35   Wash.   290,   1 

Ann.  Cas.  297,  77  Pac. 

390    6G5 

V.  Hubbell,    142   Mich.   637, 

106     N.     W.    547,     151 

Mich.    59,    114    N.    W. 

865    137 

V.  Huntington,        1        Root 

(Conn.)     226    327 

V.  Jones,    47    Neb.    108,    66 

N.    W.    19,   53    Am.   St. 

Rep.    519    ..    384,    391. 

396,     499 
V.  Jordan,  77  Conn.  469,  59 

Atl.  507   310 

V.  Kidd,    68   N.   Y.    130.    23 

Am.    Rep.    157    .  .    364, 

365,   366,     369 
y.  Lamberts,  7  Grat.   (Va. ) 

142    386,  394,     459 

v.  Lenz,    143   Wis.  615,   128 

N.   W.  280    944 

y.  Lipscomb,  13  Tex.  532  .  . 

373.  374,  710,  711,  900 
v.  Long.  106  111.  485  .  .  179,  185 
v.  Lyford,    24    Me.    147     .  . 

889.  896.  898,  904 
v.  iNTcLenilon,  59  (^a.  523  .  .  624 
v.   New   'N'ork  Consol.  Sta<ze 

Co.,    28    How.    Pr.     (N. 

V.)     277,    18    Abb.    Pr. 

419    313 

V.  Norton,  114  Wis.  458,  90 

N.    W.   449    954 

v.  Owen,  7  Lea    (Tenn.)    53 

588,  589,     597 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXIU 


[Roferenct's 

Smith   V.   Palmer,   91   Neb.  796, 

K57  N.  W.  843    847 

V.  Ponatlc,  17  :\lo.  App.  202  133 
V.  Portage   County    Com'rs, 

9    Ohio    2.1    1110 

V.  Qiiarles,     (Tenn.)     4(5    S. 

W.  103.-)   375 

V.  Sloan,    37    Wis.    2So.    19 

Am.  Rep.  757   ....   323,     324 
V.  Smith.    145    Cal.   615.   79 

Pae.  275    438,     439 

V.  Smith,    132   la.   700,    109 

N.  W.  194,  119  Am.  St. 

Rep.  581    847 

V.  Smitli,  23  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

304,  55  S.  W.  541    231 

V.  State,    1    Yerg.     (Tenn.) 

228  .  .   1169,  1181,  1266, 

1271,  1274,  1294,  1305,  1.328 

V.  State,  5  Te.x.  578   1314 

V.  State,  46  Tex.  Crini.  267, 

81  S.  W.  936,  108  Am. 

St.   Rep.   991 627 

V.  Thompson,     7     B.     Mon. 

(Ky.)    310..  .273,   278, 

280,  292,  296,  297,  298, 

731,  732,  741,     744 
V.  Tolan,  158  Mich.  89,  122 

N.  W.  513   637 

V.  Troup,   7    C.    B.   757,   62 

E.   C.  L.   757    490 

V.  Turnbull,  1  Ont.  Pr.  88  538 
V.  U.  S.,  26  Ct.  CI.  568  .  .  1142 
V.  Vicksburg,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

112  La.  985,  36  So.  826 

1009,  1040 
V.  Victoria,    54   Minn.    338, 

56  N.  W.  47    461 

V.  Walter,  125  Pa.  St.  453, 

17   Atl.  466    635,     636 

V.  Wilkins,  113  Ga.  140,  38 

S.  E.  406  330 

V.  Wilson,  1  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

115,  20   S.  W.  1119    ..      269 
V.  Woodroffe,        6        Price 

(Eng.)    230   130 

v.  Wright,     153     Mo.     App. 

719,   134   S.  W.  6S3    .  . 

872,  873,     983 
V.  Youmans,  153  N.  Y.  214, 

47  N.  E.  265    120 

V.  Y'oung,  62  111.  210   .  .980, 

1024,  1025 
Smith's  Appeal,  179  Pa.  St.  14, 

36   Atl.   134    119(i,  1197 

Smithbury   v.    Carlisle,   5   W.   & 

S.    (Pa'.)    348    293 


are  to  pages.] 

Smitlison,  Ex  p.,  108  Tenn.  442, 

67  S.  W.  864    874,  991, 

1030,  1071 
Smitliwick  v.  Evans,  24  Ga.  461     217 
Smits  V.  Ilogan,  35  Wash.  290,  1 
Ann.  Cas.  297,  77  Pae.  390.. 

524,  663,     671 
Smock  v.   Dade,  5   Rand.    (Va.) 
639,    16   Am.   Dec.    780    ..385. 

392,  394,  395,     399 
Smoot    V.    Shy,    159    Mo.    App. 
126,    139   S.   W.   239    ..    1014, 

1063,  1064,  1072,  1081 
Smyley,  Re,  64  Hun   639   mem., 

19  N.  Y.  S.  266   598 

Re,  71  Hun  639  mem.,  46  N. 

Y.  St.  Rep.  824    611 

Smyth   V.   Balch,   40   N.   H.    363 

444       518 
V.  Harvie,  31  111.  62,  83  Am'. 

Dec.  202    500,     520 

v.  Ripley,  33  Conn.  306   ...      741 
Sneed  v.  Hanly,  Hempst.  659,  22 
Fed.    Cas.    No.    13,136 

598,  605,     607 
V.  People,   38  Mich.  248    .  . 

1102,  1110,   1125 
Sneeden   v.    Harris,     109    N.    C. 
349,    13   S.   E.   920,    14   L.R.A. 

389    525 

Snell,    Re,    58    Vt.    207,    1    Atl. 

566    1090 

Snelling,  Ex  p.,  44  Cal.  553 77 

Snelson  v.  Pickard,  18  Utah  436, 

56    Pae.   89    614 

Snook  V.  Sullivan,  53  App. 

Div.  602,  66  N.  Y.   S.  24  .  .   274 
Snow,  Re,  27  Utah  265,  75  Pae. 

741  1198,  1320 

v.  Gould,  74  Me.  540,  43 

Am.  Rep.  604 924 

V.  U.  S.,  18  Wall.  317,  21 

U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  784 1114 

Snyder,  Re,  119  App.  Div.  277, 

104  N.  Y.   S.  571  1085 

Re,  190  N.  Y.  66,  13  Ann. 
Cas.  441,  82  N.  E.  742, 
123  Am.  St.  Rep.  533, 
14  L.R.A.  (N.S.)  1101 

755,  756,  760,  807,  808 

Re,  24  Fed.  910  1181, 

1211,  1215 
v.  Armstrong,    6    W.    N.    C. 

(Pa.)    412    ;?44 

v.  Critch field,    44    Neb.    70, 

62  N.  W.  306 336 


CCXXXIV 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Snyder     v.      Hcmmingway,     47 
^rich.    549,    11    N.    W. 

381    131 

Snvders  Appeal,   54   Pa.   St.   G7 

847,   1018 
Solici+or.    Re,    22    Ont.    L.    Rep. 

30,  19  Ann.  Cas.  488   708 

Solicitors.  Re,  9  Ont.  L.  Rep.  70S     674 
Solomon    R.    Co.    v.    Jones,    34 
Kan.   443    (458),   8   Pac.   730 

383,     478 
Somers    v.    Balabrega,    1    Dall. 

164,  1  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   S3   489 

Sommer  v.  Oppenheim,  19  Misc. 

60.-),  44  N.  Y.  S.  396   .  .      180 
V.  Wilt,  4  Serg.  &  R.   (Pa.) 

24    636 

Sommers  v.   Cottentin,   26   App. 
Div.  241,  49  N.  Y.  S.  652    .  . 

267,     270 
Sonnebom  v.  Moore,  105  Ga.  497, 

30  S.  E.  947   383,  395,     397 

Sonora  v.  Curtin,  137  Cal.  583, 

70  Pac.  674 97,  101,     102 

Soper    V.    ^Manning,    147    ]\Ia!^s. 

126,   16   X.  E.   752    838,     951 

Soiile  V.  Winslow,  66  Me.  447  .  .      637 
Southard     v.     Gushing,     11     B. 

Mon.   (Ky.)   344 328 

Southern       Bitulithic       Co.      v. 

Ilughston,   58   So.  450    216 

Southern   Grocer  Co.  v.  Adams, 

12  La.  60,  36  So.  226   858 

Southern  Home  Building  &  Loan 
Assoc.  V.  Butt,   77   Miss.  944, 

28  So.  725   889,     894 

Southern      Kansas      R.      Co.      v. 
Pavev,   57   Kan.   521,  46   Pac. 

969    ". 483 

Southern    Xat.    Bank   v.   Curtis, 

(Tex.)   36  S.  W.  911 800 

Soutiiern   R.  Co.  v.  Locke,  84  S. 

W.    1069    151 

V.  McNeill.  155  Fed.  756   ..    1158 
V.  White.    108    Ga.    201,    33 

S.    E.    962     203 

Southern  Sted  (  o..  Re,  169  Fed. 

702,  22   Am.   Bankr.   Rej).  476     821 
Sf)nthern  Warehouse,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Meclianics'    Trust    ('o.,    (  Kv.) 

56  S.  W.  162   '..      773 

Soutligate    V.    Atlantic,    etc..    R. 
Co.,    61    Mo.    89    .  .    439,    711, 

93 1 ,     940 
South'vark,    ctr.,    Wati'r    Co.    v. 

Quick,  :!  Q.  1'..  1).  315    198 

SoutliwcHtern   f/and  Co.  v.  Ellis, 

104    Wis.   445,   80   N.   W.    749     530 


are  to  pages.] 

Southwick,    Re,     1    Johns.    Ch. 

(N.  Y.)   22   720' 

Soutliworth  V.  Bearnes,  88  Minn. 
31,    92    N.    W.    466     ..     1218, 

1225,  1307 
Sowell    V.    Brewton    Bank,    119 

Ala.  92,  24  So.  585    .  .      327 
V.  Champion,    6    Ad.    &    El. 
407,  33  E.  C.  L.  92,  2 

N.  &   P.   627    527 

Spangler  v.  Sellers,  5   Fed.   882 

517,  548,  549,     584 
Sparks,   Re,    63   N.   J.   Eq.   242, 

51  Atl.  118  .  .  273,  288,     289' 
V.  Forrest.  85  Ark.  425,  108 

S.   W.   835    880,     948 

V.  McDonald,     (N.    J.)     41 

Atl.    369    838 

V.  Sparks.  51   Kan.   195,  32 

Pac.  892    180,     185 

V.  Walden,  79  S.  W.  248,  25 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1937    767 

Sparling  v.  Conway,  75  ]\Io.  510     636 
V.  U.  S.  Sugar  Co.,  136  Wis. 

509,  117  X.  W.  1055   .  .      670' 
Spaulding  v.  Allen,  10  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.   397,   19  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.    608    387,     481 

V.  Hill,    115    Kv.    1,    72    S. 
W.  307,  24 "Ky.  L.  Rep. 

1802    ■. 1124 

V.  Muskingum      Bank,      12 

Ohio  544    773 

V.  Swift,  18  Vt.  214  .  .  420, 

431,  440,  441.  445,     518. 
Spaulding's    Appeal,    33    X^.    H. 

479    510 

Spauling  v.  State,  61  Neb.  289, 

85   X.   W.   SO    155,    1099,  1112 

Spears   v.    Ledergerber,    56    Mo. 

465  384 

V.  Rav,  49  S.  W.  535,  20 

Ky.  L.  Rep.  1162  238 

Speer  v.  Matthews,  78  Ga,  757, 

3  S.  E.  644   1003 

Spence   v.    Bode,    57    ]\Iisc.    611, 

108  X.  Y.  S.  593   864 

V.   Rutledge,   11   Ala.   557.. 

367,     475 
Speueeley     v.     Scluilcnburgh,     7 

East  '(Eng.)  357  170' 

Spencer,  Re,  137  App.  Div.  330, 
122  X.  Y.  S.  190  .  .  16, 

ns7,  12S0. 
Re,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  SIl,  IS  W. 
R.  240,  21  L.  T.  X.  S. 
808  537' 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXV 


[References 

Spencer  v.  Biisch.  50  IMicli.  284, 

1)8  N.  Y.  S.  GOO.  .  .701,     SCO 
V.  Collins,     ]r)G     Cal.     2!)8, 
20    Ann.    Cas.    49,    104 

Pac.   320    0.34 

V.  King,  5  Oliio  1S2    (iOS 

V.  Kinnard,    12   Tex.    ISO..      4G1 
V.  Kazor,    251    111.    27S,    90 

N.    E.    300    179 

V.  Smith,   45   Ind.   App.    17, 

87   X.  E.   ]54    574 

Spencer's   Appeal,    G   Sad    (Pa.) 

488,  9  Atl.  523    841,  1022 

Spenser,  Re,  143  App.  Div.  229, 

128   N.   Y.   S.   IGS    ....    1236,  1309 
Speranza.    Re,    186    N.    Y.    280, 
78  N.  E.   1070,  reversing  114 
App.   Div.   913,    100   N.   Y.    S. 

1144    10G9 

Sperry  v.  Reynolds,  Go  N.  Y.  179 

418,     518 
Spicer,    Re,    Tuck.    (N.    Y.)    80 

23,     105 
V.  Y'opp,  30  Ga.  285  ..  921,     964 
Spiller  V.  Davidson,  4  La.  Ann. 

171 584,     592 

Spinks  v.  Athens  Sav.  Rank,  108 

Ga.  37G.  33  S.  E.  1003 3G0 

V.  Davis,    32    iliss.    154     .. 

308,  310,     314 
Splane,  Re,  123  Pa.  St.  527,  16 
Atl.  481,  23  W.  N.  C.   154    .  . 

31,  32,  43,  85,       88 
Spokane     County     v.     Allen,     0 
Wash.    229,    37    Pac.    428,    43 

Am.  St.  Rep.   830    1090 

Spors  V.  Scluilthois,  55  Hun  G03 

mem..  8  X.  Y.  S.  175 1063 

Spraguo  V.  Eni^elbrecht,  29  Misc. 

4G4,  61  X.  Y.  S.  952  .  .  850 
V.  Horton,  18  N.  Y.  S.  165  609 
V.  Moore,  136  Mich.  426,  99 

X\  W.  377   514 

Sprague's  IMercantilo  Agency,  25 

Quebec  Super.  Ct.  383   .."....      109 
Sprayberry  v.  iferk,   30  Ga.  81, 

76  Am."  Dec.  637  906 

Spreckels  v.  Ord,  72  Cal.  86.  13 

Pac.  158  484 

Sprigg  V.   Barber,   122  Cal.  573, 

55  Pac.  419 954 

V.  Beanian.  6  La.  59 329 

Springer,  Re,  16  Pittsb.  Leg.  J. 

X.  S.  (Pa.)   363 991 

V.  Board     of     Auditors,     99 

Mich.  513.  58  X.  W.  471     716 


are  to  pages.] 

Squier  v.  Barnes,  193  Mass.  21, 

78  X.  E.  731    949 

Squires    v.    Kissam,     121    App. 

Div.  607,  106  X.  Y'.  S.  373   .  .      S78 
Stackhouse  v.  O'Hara,  14  Pa.  St. 

88    392 

Stackpole    v.    Hennen,    6    Mart. 
X^.  S.   (La.)   481,  17  Am.  Dec. 

187    119 

Stafford  v.  Brown,  4  Paige    (X. 

Y.)    360    408 

Stage  V.   Stevens,   1   Denio    ( X. 

Y.)    267     600 

Stalil  V.  Ertel,  62  Fed.  920 851 

V.  Wadsworth,  13  Civ.  Proc. 
32,   10   N.   Y.   St.   Rep. 
228   .  .  .    988,  996,  1040,  1075 
Staley  v.   Dodge,   50   111.   43    .  . 

279,     280^ 
Stallings   v.    Hullum,     79     Tex. 

421,    15    S.   W.   677    189,     194 

Stanberry   v.   Dickerson,   35   la. 

493  931,     93? 

Standard  Fuller's  Earth  Co.,  Re, 

186   Fed.  578    824 

Standard     Oil     Co.     v.     ^leyers 
Bros.  Drug  Co.,  84  Mo.  App. 

76    195. 

Standefer    v.    Dowlin,     Hempst. 
209,    22    Fed.    Cas.    Xo.    13.- 

284a 420,  426,  430,     435"' 

Standidge    v.    Cliicago    R.    Co., 
254  111.  524,  98  X.  E.  963    . . 

1010,  1011,  1042,  1014,   1080- 
Stanhope  v.  Firmin,  3  Binir.  X. 

Cas.   303,  32  E.  C.  L.   128    .  .      442 
Stanley  v.  Bouck,  107  Wis.  225, 

83  X.  W.  298 981, 

995,  1050 
V.  Jones,  7  Ring.  369,  20  E. 
C.  L.  1G5,  4  Bl.  Com. 

135  653. 

V.  Schwalby,      162      LI.      S. 
255.    16   S.   Ct.   754,   40 

U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    OGO 1137 

V.  Stanley,    27    Wasli.    570. 

68   Pac.    187    180,     216-. 

Stannard  v.  Cllitliorne,  10  Ring. 
491,  25  E.  C.  L.  212,  4  Mo.  & 

S.   359    560 

Stanton  v.  Clinton,  52  la.  109.  2 

X.  W.  1027 593,     882 

V.  Embrey,    93    U.    S.    548, 
23  U".  S.  (L.  ed.)  983.. 
673,  723,  728,  872,  930,     031 
V.  Goshom,    94    Fed.   52,    36 

C.  C.  A.  75 632. 


CCXXXVl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


Stanton 


651 


Hart,   27    :Mich.   o.SO 

03.').  G4n,  (>50, 

V.  Haskin.      1      MacAitluir 

(D.    C.)     558,    29    Am. 

Eep.   612    .  .    653,   6()4, 

723, 

V.  Hatfield,  1  Keen.   (Eng. ) 

358    

Stanwood  v.  Wishard,  128   Fed. 

499 279, 

V.  Wishard,    134    Fed.    959 

301, 

Staples  V.  .Tolmson,  25  App.  Cas. 

(D.  C.)   155 632, 

V.  Staples,  4  Me.  532  .  .  529, 

599, 

V.  Staples,   85  Va.  76.  7   S. 

E.    199    570,   571, 

585, 

Starbuck    v.    Murray,    5    Wend. 

(X.  Y.)    148,  21  Am.  Dec.  172 

Starin  v.  New  York,   106  N.  Y. 

82,  12  X.  E.  643    .  .    78],  785, 

Stark  V.  Hart,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

544,  54  S.  W.  378    

V.  Hill,  31  Mo.  App.  101   .  . 

884, 

V.  Small.  72  Wis.  215,  39  N. 

W.  350    128, 

Starke  v.  Kenan,  11  Ala.  818  .  . 

341, 
Starnes  v.  Sehofield,  5  Ind.  App. 

4,  31  X.  E.  480   777 

V.  Case,    59    Iowa,    491,    13 

X.   W.   645    322 

V.  Hall,  87  X.  C.  381   ..269, 

465, 

V.  Vanderhevden,    9    Johns. 

(X.    Y.)     253,    6    Am. 

Dec.     275     ..273.     278, 

601.  610, 

Starret's    Case,    1    Dall.    356,    1 

U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    174 

Starrett   v.   Gault,   62    ill.   App. 

209    

St'ite,  Ex  p.,  113  Ala.  S5,  21  So. 

210    

V.  Addison,  2  S.  ('.   356    .  . 

V.  Ami)t,  6  Oliio   Dec.    ( l^e- 

j)rint)     699,    7    Am.    L. 

I!cc.     4fi!l      .  .608,     (i65, 

V.  Anderson,    29     i-a.    Ann. 

774     1097. 

V.  Andrews,    51    .V.    II.   582 

V.   AtcliafalvH    IJ..    ftc,    Co.. 

5    Uoh."    (I.ii.)     (i6    


[References  are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Bal)in.  124  T  a.  100.",,  IS 


728 

V. 

842 

575 

V. 

302 

V. 

642 

V. 

605 

V. 

V. 

592 

V. 

446 

V. 

863 

V. 

245 

912 

V. 

130 

V. 

487 


467 


611 


10 


875 


11.50 
1116 


1037 

1 1  (i3 
967 

870 


Ann.   Cas.   837,   50   So. 

825     124,    125,     127 

Baker.  25  Fla.  598,  6  So. 

445      36 

Ballinger,   41    Wash.   23, 
82  Pac.  1018,  3  L.R.A. 

(X.S.)    72    500,     501 

Ijannon,    (Ore.)    42    Pac. 

869     1289,  1292 

Barber,   13   Idalio  (jr^,  88 

Pac.  418    1099 

Barnett,    98    Miss.    812, 

54   So.   313    1116 

Barrow.    Mann.      Unrep. 

Cas.    (La.)    332    ..733,     912 
Barrow,     30     La.     Ann. 

657    1093 

V.  Barrows,    52    Conn.    323 

161,  213,     226 
Bartlett,     55     Me.     200 

1101,  1103,  1107 
Bartlett,     105     Me.    212, 
74  Atl.  18,  134  Am.  St. 
Rep.     542,     24     L.R.A. 

(X.  S.)    564   1100 

Bass.  12  La.  Ann.  862  1099 
Baum,  14  Mont.  12,  35 

Pac.  108  1218,  1222 

V.  Baxter,  38  Ark.  462 

415,  424,  427 
V.  Beal,  60  Ohio  St.  208,  54 

X.  E.  84  1091 

V.  Beardslev,  108  la.  396, 

79  X.  'W.  138 426, 

427,  435 
V.  Becktr.  3  S.  D.  29,  51  X. 

W.  1018  1147,  1163 

V.  Behrens,  109  la.  58,  79 

X.  W.  387,  715,  717,  816 
V.  Beldsmeier,  56  Mo.  226  858 
V.  Bell,  212  Mo.  Ill,  111 

S.  W.  24  178 

V.  Berry,  3  Cil.   (Minn.) 

190  1  147 

V.  15ezon,  48  La.  Ann.  13(19, 

20  So.  892  1097,  1116 

V.  IM'j-'.'s,   45   .Mont.   400, 

123  Pae.  410  1107 

V.  Bi<,'gs,  52  Ore.  4:i:!.  97 

I'ac.  713  .  .  1179,  I  ISO,  1268 
V.  Blvdenl)ur-i,  i;i.">  la.  2(i4. 
14  Ann.  (as.  443,  112 
X.  W.  634  181.  182 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


CCXXXVll 


[Kofoicnces 

State  V.   Boai-d  of  Chosen   Froo 

holders,    47    N.    J.    L. 

417,  1  Atl.  701    1102 

V.  Boasberg,    124    La.    28!t. 

50      So.      1U2      ..1005. 

lOOG,  1097 
V.  Borgstrom,  69  Minn.  508, 

72     N.     W.     799,     975 

1099.  1100,  1112 
V.  Bouclreaux,  14  La.  Ann. 

88 1099 

V.  Bowles,  70  Kan.  821,  79 

Pac.  720.  69  L.B.A.  176  1164 

V.  Boyd,  63  Ind.  428  506 

V.  Boyer.  232  Mo.  267,  134 

S.  W.  542  1122 

V.  Brady,  (Tex.)  114  S. 

W.*895  1148 

V.  Briggs,  58  W.  Va.  291, 

52  S.  E.  218  147 

V.  Britton,  131  La.  877,  60 

So.  379  ..1097,  1099, 

1101,    1121,  1122 
V.  Brown,    2    Marv.    (Del.) 

380,    36    Atl.    458    172 

V.  Brown.    106   La.  437,   31 

So.  50    1116 

V.  Brvan,    50    Fla.   293,    39 

So.    929     1146,  1151 

V.  Brvan,   98   N.   C.   644,   4 

S".  E.  522   108 

V.  Buchanan,  Wright  (Ohio) 

233     348,     478 

V.  Buhlcr,  132  La.  1065,  62 

So.  145  1099 

V.  Burr,  19  Neb.  593.  28  N. 

W.  261  1168,  1247,  1266 

V.  Butler.  105  Me.  91,  18 

Ann.  Cas.  484,  73  AtL 

560,  24  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

744  1091,  1092 

V.  Bvrkett.  46  Ohio  Dec.  89 

41,  1170,  1261,  1262, 

1264,  1269,  1272,  1283 
V.  Cad  well,  16  Mont.  119, 

40  Bac.  176  ..1211, 

1220.  1241,  1273.  1307 
V.  Cad  well.   (Mont.)   36 

Pac.  85  1291 

V.  California    Min.    Co.,    13 

Nev.    203     ..417.    419. 

1150,  1160 
V.  Carondelet  C  anal  &  Nav- 
igation    Co.,     129     La. 

279.  56  So.  137    1153 

V.  Car  others,    1    G.    Greene 

(Iowa)   464  ..414,  416,  1118 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Cato,  116  La.  195.  40  So. 

633     1107 

V.  Central   Pac.   R.   Co.,   10 

Nev.    47     1155 

V.  Challis.  75  N.  H.  492,  76 

Atl.    643    327 

V.  Cliapman,    11    Ohio    430 

1242,  1311 
V.  Chitty,    1    Bailey   L.    (L. 

C.)    401    674 

V.  Chocklett    (la.)     136    N. 

W.    1051    1122 

V.  Circuit    Ct.,    97    Wis.    1, 

72  N.  W.   193,  65   Am. 

St.   Kep.  90,  38   L.R.A. 

554    1204 

V.  Clarke,   46   la.   155    1282 

V.  Clarke,  3  Nev.  566    1143 

V.  Clifford,  124  Mo.  492,  28 

S.  W.  5.. 384,  387,  396,     499 
V.  Clopton,     15     Mo.     App. 

589    . .608,   1168,    1234.  1300 
V.  Cobley,  128  la.  114,  103 

N.  W.  99    1102,  nil 

V.  Cole,  38  La.  Ann.  843..  1115 
V.  Coleman,    199    Mo.    112. 

97  S.  W.  574 1101.  1122 

V.  Colvig,    15    Ore.    57,    13 

Pac.     639      1094 

V.  Cook.  23  La.  Ann.  347  .  .  331 
V.  Corbin,  16  S.  C.  533  ..  1152 
V.  Corcoran,    7    Idaho    220, 

61   Pac.  1034 n06,  1117 

V.  Cornwell.    14    Wyo.    526. 

85    Pac.   977    1150,  1163 

V.  Corvin,  51  W.  Va.  19,  41 

S.    E.    211     857 

V.  Crafton.    89    la.    109,    50 

N.  W.  257    1107,  1122 

V.  Crilly,   09    Kan.    802,    77 

Pac.   701    1163 

V.  Crosby,  24   Nev.   115,   50 

Pac'   127,    77    Am.    St. 

Rep.    786     1178 

V.  Crumb,   157  Mo.   545,  57 

S.  W.  1030 422 

V.  Cummings,   189  Mo.  626. 

88   S.  W.  706    175,  177 

V.  Cunningham,      81      Wis. 

440.  51    N.   W.  724,   15 

L.R.A.  561    1156 

V.  Daspit.   129   La.   752,   56 

So.  661   noo 

V.  Davis,  44  Mo.  129.  .1093.  1096 
V.  Davis,   92   Tenn.   634,   23 

S.  W.  59 1219,   1223 


CCXXXVlll 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

State  V.   Dawson,   86   Kan.   180, 

319  Pac.  360,  39  L.R.A. 

(N.S.)     993    1163 

V.  Dawson,    90    Mo.    149,    1 

S.  W.  827 157,  169,     217 

V.  Debenture    Guarantee    & 

Loan  Co.,  51   La.   Ann. 

1874,  26  So.  GOO  1151 

V.  Dennv,  67  Ind.  148 

1147,  1149,  1156 
V.  De  Serrant,  33  La.  Ann. 

979     146 

V.  Desforges,  5   Rob.    (La.) 

253    1153 

V.  District    Ct.,    113    Minn. 

304,    129   N.   W.    583..      851 
V.  District     Ct.,    22     Mont. 

25.  55  Pac.  916  ..1163,  1164 
V.  District  Court,  30  Mont. 

8,   75   Pac.   516    ..238, 

1002,   1007 
V.  District     Ct.,     42     Mont. 

496,    Ann.    Cas.    1912B 

246,  113  Pac.  472 245 

V.  District  Court.  19  N.  D. 

819,    Ann.    Cas.    1912D 

935,  124  N.  W.  417    ..    1164 
V.  Douglass,  20  VV.  Va.  770 

155,  159,  162,  166,     169 
V.  Dover,     9     N.     H.     468 
V.  Dubuclet,  27  La.  Ann.  29   1160 
V.  Duncan,  116  Mo.  288.  22 

S.  W.  699    1099,  1112 

V.   Durlin,     4(1     Kan.      695, 

27    Pac.    148    852 

V.  Easterling,     1     Rich.    L. 

(S.  C.)    310    478 

V.  Ebcriiart,  116  Minn.  313, 

Ann.    Cas.    1913B    785, 

133     N.     W.     857,     39 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    788    .... 

1126,   1127,  112S 
V.  Echeveria,    33    La.    Aiui. 

709     1160.   1162 

V.  Edgefield,  etc.,   11.  Co.,  4 

IJaxt.    (Tenn.)    92    845 

V.  Edwards,  47  Miss.  581..    1107 
V.    loggers,      33      Nov.     535, 

112    Pac.  699    1  149 

V.  Elirlick,   65   \V.   Vn.  700, 

64  S.  E.  935,  23  L.H.A. 

(X.S.)    691     1144.    1  ir.O 

V.   Fagan,  22   La.   Ann.  515    1153 
V.    Falsrtta,   43    Wash.    159, 

HI     Ann.    (  :i.h.     177,    H(i 

I'ac    168    207 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.   Fargo,  151  Mo.  282,  52 

8.    W.    199    8.59 

V.  Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co..  81 

Tex.  530,    17   S.   \V.   60  1152 
V.  Faulkner,    175    Mo.    546, 

75  S.  VV.   116    159, 

187,    213,     353 
V.  Fellowes,     12     La.    Ann. 

344     96 

V.  Fernandez,   49    La.    Ann. 

764,    21    So.    591    ..97, 

98,  101,     104 
V.  Fidelitv,  etc.,  Co.,  94  Mo. 

App.184,  67  S.  W.  958 

277,     279 
V.  Finley,   30    Fla.   325,    11 

So.  674,  18  L.R.A.  401 

1241,  1274,  1289,   1292,  1304 
V.  Finley,  245  Mo.  465,  150 

S.  W.  1051    1122 

V.  Finn,    32    Ore.    519,    52 

Pac.    756,    67    Am.    St. 

Rep.  550   .  .1174,  1239,  1258 
V.  First    Judicial     District 

Court,  22  Mont.  25,  55 

Pac.  916    1150 

V.  Fisher,  82  Neb.  301,  117 

N.  W.  882,  aflirmed  on 

rehearing  82  Neb.  367, 

119  N.  \v.  249    .  .1236, 

1307,  1321 
V.  Fitzgerald,  49  la.  260,  31 

Am.    Rep.    148    ..1106,  1107 
V.  Fitzgerald,    68    Vt.    125, 

34  Atl.  429   206 

V.  Fleming,   13   la.   443 

1150,  1163 
V,  Foley,  144  Mo.  618,  619, 

46  S.  W.  733  223 

V.  Foreman,   3    Mo.   602    .  .    1272 
V,  Fort,    178    Mo.    518,    77 

S.  W.  741  ..1176,  1177, 

1286,  1287 
V.  Foster,  32  Kan.  14,  3 

Pac.  534  ..1114,  1115, 

1127.  1128 
V.  Fourchv,  106  La.  743,  31 

So.  ,325  ..1176.  1280, 

1299,  1300,  1302,  1305, 

1307,  1320 
V.  Frnnklin  County  Com'rs, 

20  Ohio  St.  421  .  .1101.  1125 
V.  Frn/.icr.  26  S.  I).  ;583,  128 

N.  \V.  322  450 

V.  I'rcmnnt,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  22 

Neb.  313,  35  N.  VV.  118 

1150,  1158,  1160 


TABLE    OF    CASF.R. 


ecxxxix 


[References 

Slate  V.  Oa'Te.  52  Mo.  *App.  4()4  858 
V.  Garosehe.  30  Mo.  25()  .  .  83 
V.  Garrett,     29     La.     Ann. 

G37      ]093 

V.  Gazlav.  5  Ohio  22    .  .!)ii, 

i)8,    00,     100 
V.  Gebliardt,    87    Mo.    Apj). 

542,   540.  .  .  .  1168,    lltiO 

1170,  1250,  1272,  1277, 

1291.  1203,  1294 
V.  Gilbert,  163  Mo.  A{)p. 

670,  147  S.  W.  505 

1002,  1123 
V.  Gleason,  12  Fla.  190,  225 

1144,  1145,  1146,  1150.  1151 
V.  Gleason,  19  Ore.  159.  23 

Pac.  817  158,  202 

V.  Gleim,    17    Mont.    17,   41 

Pac.    998,    52    Am.    St. 

Rep.     655,     31     L.R.A. 

294   333 

V.  Gonzales.  26  Tex.  197  1117 
V.  Gocde,  4  Idaho  730.  44 

Pac.  640  1302 

V.  Gorman,  171  Ind.  5S.  85 

N.  E.  763  152,  1153 

V.  Gosev.  Ill  La.  616,  35 

So."  786  155 

V.  Graham,  25  La.  Ann.  433  1161 
V.  Graham.  68  W.  Va.  1,  69 

S.  E.  301  856,  857 

V.  Gratiot,   17   Wis.  245    ..      482 
V.  Grifiui.      87      Mo.      608 

1103.  nio 

V.  Grimmoll,    116    la.    506. 

88    N.    W.   342    .  .1115,   1150 
V.  Grover,  47  Wash.  39.  91 

Pac.  564    .  .1169,   1170, 

1180,  1211 
V.  Guglielmo,  40  Ore.  250, 

7  Ann.  Cas.  076,  79 

Pac.  577,  80  Pac.  103, 

69  L.R.A.  466 1115 

V.  Gulick,  17  N.  J.  L.  435 

254.  258 
V.  Hacklcv,  119  La.  482,  44 

So.  272  1150.  1162 

V.  Halstead,   73  la.  376,  35 

N.   W.   457    ..308,  300. 

315,  1104,  1105 
V.  Hand,  9  Ohio  42  .  .1174.  1219 
V.  Hansford.  43  W.  Va.  773, 

28   S.   E.   791    15 

V.  ITarbcr,   129  Mo.  294.  31 

S.  W.  889  ..1153,  1168, 

1169,  1187.  1241,  1283 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Harper's  Ferry  Bridge 

Co..  16  W.  Va.  864..  ..      630 
V.  Harrington.       100       Mo. 

170,      13     S.     W.     398 

375.     377 

V.  TFarris.  12  Xev.  414 1097 

V.  Harris.     14    N.    D.    501, 

105  X.  W.  621  ..430,  439 
V.  Hart,  (La.)  02  So.  161 

.1113,  1117 
V.  Hawkins,  28  Mo.  366 

354.  369,  501,  704,  796 
V.  Hawkins,  27  Wash.  375, 

67  Pac.  814 1103 

V.  Havne,  4  S.  C.  403.. 96,   97 

V.  Havs,  23  Mo.  287 1163 

V.  Havs,  64  W.  Va.  45.  61 

S".  E.  356  ..31,  1169, 

1257,  1258,  1272,  1289,  1300 
V.  Hazleton,  15  La.  Ann. 

72  155,  198 

V.  Hedgepetli,    125    Mo.    14, 

28    S.    W.    160     ..209, 

231,     331 
V.  Heidt.  20  N.  D.  357,  127 

X.    W.    72    1163. 

V.  Helm,  92  la.  540,  01  N. 

W.    246     1107,  1123 

V.  Henning,     33     Ind.     189 

1090.    1001,  1114 
V.  Herbert,  63  Kan.  516,  06 

Pac.    235     ..175,     187, 

189,    191,     197 
V.  Hoben,  30  Utah  180.  102 

Pac.  1000 221,     225 

V.  Hockcr.   39   Fla.  477,  22 

So.    721,    03    Am.    St. 

Rep.  174 34,       70 

V.  Hocking  Count}',  40  Ohio 

St.  331   1125 

V.  Holden,    44    Tex.    Crim. 

382,  71  S.  W.  000 107 

V.  Holding.     1     McCord     L. 

(X.  Y.)   379  ..15.  1106, 

1109,    1232,  1265 
V.  Hoshor,    26    Wash.    643, 

07  Pac.  386 1108 

V.  Hospers.     147     la.     712, 

Ann.    Cas.    1912B    754, 

126  X.  W.  818    ..1126,  1128 
V.  Hostetter,    137    Mo.    636, 

39   S.   W.  270,  59   Am. 

St.  Rep.  515,  38  L.R.A. 

208    1143 

V.  Ilousewortli.   91   la.   740. 

60  X.  W.  221 176,     181 


ccxl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

State  V.  Houston,  3  Har.  (Del.) 

]5    232.   422,   424,     425 

V.  Howard,  112  la.  25U,  83 

X.  W.  975..J273,  1287, 

1292.  1306,  1313.   1327 
V.  Howard,     118    Mo.    127, 

24  S.  W.  41 1104 

V.  Hnegin,  110  Wis.  189.  85 

X.  W.   1040,  G2  L.R.A. 

700    1110 

V.  Hunt,    25    R.    I.    75,    54 

Atl.   937    027 

V.  Huston.  21  Okla.  782,  97 

Pac.   982    1158 

V.  International  &  G.  X.  R. 

Co.,  89  Tex.  502,  35  S. 

W.    1007    1157 

V.  I.   S.   S.,   1   Tvler    (Vt.) 

178      ". 1104 

V.  JacI<son.  08  Ind.  58 1116 

V.  James,  34  S.  C.  49,  12  S. 

E.  057    220 

V.  Jamison.    142    Ind.    079, 

42  X.  E.  350    1103 

V.  Jefferson     Iron     Co.,     00 

Tex.    312     148.     149 

V.  Jepson,  76  Kan.  044.  92 

Pac.  GOO 1097.   1140 

V.  Jcrrv,  4  La.  Ann.  190   .  .    1099 
V.  Jeter,    1    McCord    L.    (S. 

C.)     234     1090 

V.  Johnson.  149  la.  4()2.  128 

X.  W.  837 272,  li'.iHi 

V.  Johnson,  41  La.  Ann. 

1070,  6  So.  802 1099 

V.  Johnson,  24  S.  1).  590. 

124  X.  W.  847  1102 

V.  Johnson.   12  Tex.  231 

1099.  1117 
V.  Jolinston,  101  Ind.  223 

1(194.  1090 
V.  Jolinston,  2  liar.  &  .M. 

(Md.)  164  .  .85,  1323.  1325 

V.  Jones,  29  Ark.  127  128 

V.  Judge,  3  \U)\>.    (La.)  410 

12S3,  1294 

V.  Kemp,  82  Mo.  213  1322 

V.  Kent,  4  X.  I).  577,  02  N. 

W.  631.  27  L.R.A.  OSO 

24,  1105,  1106,  1107, 

1  MIS,  1  109.  1  1  1  1.  1  123 
V.  Kerr,  s  M...  .\y],.  125.  .  S50 
V.  Key,  93  Miss.   1  15.  -40  So. 

75    1143 

V.    Kidd.    H9    Li.    54.    50    X. 

W.  203    213 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  King,  21   La.  Ann.  201 

90,    97.       9S 
V.  Kirby,   30   La.   Ann.   988   1121 
V.  Kirke.    12    Fla.    278,    !)a 
Am.  Dec.  315   .  .4,  5,  0, 

1108.  1174,  1177,  1293, 

1294,  1297.  1329 
V.  Kitchen,  41  X.  J.  L.  229  511 
V.  Kittrell.  7  Raxt.  (Teiin.) 

107    1114 

V.  Kovoloskv,  92  la.  498,  01 

X.  W.  223    1091.  1117 

V.  Lackey,  35  Tex.  357 1122 

V.  Lancaster  County   Bank, 

8  Xeb.  218  . .  .' 1159 

V.  Laughlin,  73  Mo.  433 

1168,  1176,  1178,  1323 
V.  Laughlin.  10  Mo.  App.  1 

1109,  1170,  1172,  1174,  1202 
V.  Lehman,  175  Mo.  619,  75 

S.  W.  1.39  212,  223 

V.  Leischer.    117    Wis.    475, 

94  X.  W.  299 1152 

V.  Lewis.  90  la.  280,  65  X. 

W.  295    312,  1105 

V.  Lewis,    9    Mo.    App.    321     450 
V.  Lucas,    24    Ore.    168,    33 

Pac.  538    1037 

V.  McClaughertv,  33  W.  Va. 

250,  lb  S.  E.  407  ..31, 

44,  1109.  1170.  1180, 

1197,  1202.  1259.  1201. 

1263,  1204,  1280,  132S 
V.  McClelland,   138   Ind. 

395,  37  X.  E.  799  1156 

V.  McHale,  10  :\Io.  App. 

478  859 

V.  Mack,  45  La.  Ann.  1155, 

14  So.  141  1097 

V.  iMcKinnev,  42  la.  205..   028 
V.  IMcLaughlin.   15   Kan. 

228.  22  Am.  Rep.  204  1150 
V.  McRae,  49  Fla.  389,  0 

Ann.  Cas.  580.  38  So. 

005    1290,    1305.   1311 

V.  Malx'ii.     5     Okla.     Crim. 

581,   114  Pac.   1  122 

1110,   1122 
V.  Madigan,  06  Minn.  ID.  OS 

X.   W.    179    221 

V.  ]\I:ingriim.    35    I^a.    Atiii. 

(il9     1107,   1122 

V.  Manlove.     :!3     Tex.     7!tS. 

1  Kill,   1  113 
V.   Marion    Ciuintw    85    Ind. 

4S9     ■ 1  150.    1100 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxli 


[Rofercnces 

State  V.  Marks,  30  La.  Ann.  !)" 

(iO,        71 
V.  Marroro,  132  La.  10!),  (il 

So.  13G  ni^n 

V.  Marshall,  8  Ala.  302..  .. 

1S7,  188,     193 
V.  Marsliall    County,    14    S. 

D.  140,   84   N.   W.   775 

1097,  1125,  1150 
V.  Martin,  45  Wasli.  70,  87 
Pac.    1054.  .1187,   1207. 
1253,  1257,  1284,  128.5, 

1300,  1321 
V.  Marx,    78    Conn.    18,    GO 

Atl.  090    340,     477 

V.  Mason,    29    Ore.    18,    43 

Pac.    051,    54    Am.    St. 

Rep.  772    r2()9.  1270 

V.  Maxwell,    19    Fla.   31    .. 

1192,  1196,  1241.   1281, 

1301,  1330 
V.  Mayes,  28  Miss.  706  .  .  1147 
V.  Ma'vnard,  35  Wasli.   168, 

75   Pae.  937    1149 

V.  Mecliem.  31    Kan.  435,  2 

Pac.  810    1092,   1113 

V.  iledford,  34  W.  Va.  633, 

12  S.  E.  864    857 

V.  Meek,   86   Kan.   576,   120 

Pac.  555   1092 

V.  Mewherter,    46    la.    88..      193 

V.  Meyer,  63  Tnd.  33    1153 

V.  Miles,    11    Idaho   784,   S3 

Pac.  097    1150 

V.  Miller,  107  Ind.  39.  7  N. 

E.  758    715 

V.  Miller,   132    la.   587.    109 

N.  W.  1087 1117,  1125 

V.  Milwaukee  Electric  R.  & 

Light     Co.,     136     Wis. 

179,  116  N.  W.  900,  18 

L.R.A.(N.S.)    672 

1152.  1157 
V.  Moeling,  129  La.  204,  55 

So.   764    1121 

V.  Montsomerv,  65  la.  483, 

22  k.  W.'OSO 1100,   1107 

V,  MontG;omery,        25       ]^a. 

Ann.  138* 1113 

V.  Montgomerv,   41   Iva. 

Ann.  1087,  6  So.  803.  .  1121 
V.  Moore,  40  Neb.  854,  59 

N.  W.  755,  25  L.R.A. 

774  1020 

▼.  Moore.  1  Ohio  Dec.    (Re- 
print)  500,  10  West.  L. 

J.  219    1125 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Moore,   57   Tex.  307...    1145 
V.   Morgan.  80  la.  413.  45  X. 

W.  1070    615,     618 

V.  :\Inriartv.    82    Minn.    68, 

84  N.'W.  495  1152 

V.  ]\If)iris,  Jloust.  Cr.  Cas. 

(Del.)  124  1143 

V.  Morrison,  64  Ind.  141.  . 

1090,  1113 
V.  Mosher,  128  la.  82,  5 

Ann.  Cas.  984,  103  N. 

\Y.   105  ...  1170.  1174, 

1176,  1177,  1261.  1262, 

1263.  1264.  1274,  1286, 

1287,  1289,  1294,  1301, 

130G,  1311,  1324,  1327 
V.  Moxley,  102  Mo.  374,  14 

S.  W.  969,  15  S.  W.  556  1099 
V.  Muench,  217  Mo.  124,  117 

S.  W.  25,  129  Am.  St. 

Rep.  536  451 

V.  Muench,  230  Mo.  236,  130 

S.  \Y.  282    417 

V.  Mullins,  129  Mo.  231,  31 

S.  W.  744  ..1153, 1168, 

1241,  1283 
V.  Murphv,  (Tex.)  137  S, 

W^  708 426 

V.  Nathans,  49  S.  C.  199, 

27  S.  E.  52  1302 

V.  Nelson.  91  Minn.  143,  97 

N.  W^  652  226 

V.  New        Jersey        Jockev 

Club,   52  N.  J.  L.   493, 

19  Atl.  976   1110 

V.  Nield,   4   Kan.   App.    626, 

45  Pac.  623    1092,  1098 

V.  North     Shore     Boom     & 

Driving   Co.,    55    W^ash. 

11,  107  Pac.  196.  modi- 
fying 55  W'ash.  1,  103 

Pac.  426  552 

V.  Novak,  109  la.  717,  79  N. 

W.  465  1106,  1122 

V.  O'Brien,  35  Mont.  482, 

10  Ann.  Cas.  1006.  90 

Pac.  514  .  .  1101,  1107,  1112 
V.  Ormiston,  66  la.  143,  23 

N.  W,  370  1106 

V.  Orraye,  (N.  J.)  87  Atl. 

121  628 

V.  Orrick,  106  Mo.  Ill,  17 

S.  W.  176,  329  .  .  1101,  1107 
V.  Osakis.  112  Minn.  365, 

128  N.  W.  295  1156 


ccxlii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

State  V.  Osborne,  54  Ore.  28!»,  20 

Ann.  Cas.  627,  103  Pae. 

62     1120 

V.  Pacific    Express    Co..    80 

Neb.    823,    115    N.    W. 

619,     18     L.R.A.(N.S.) 

664    1150.  1158 

V.  Paris  R.  Co.,  55  Tex.  76  1157 
V.  Parkinson,  5  Nev.  15  .  .  478 
V.  Parlange,    26    La.    Ann. 

548    1096 

V.  Parsons.    109    Mo.    App. 

432,  84  S.  W.  1019    .  . 

858,     859 
V.  Passaic   Countv    Agricul- 
tural Soc,  54  N.  J.  L. 

260,   23   Atl.    680    417 

V.  Peabodv,    63     Mo.    App. 

378     .* 1176,  1178 

V.  Perry,   4    Idaho    224,    38 

Pac.  655  ....   154,  159. 

205.  207 
V.  Peterson,  74  Tnd.  174...  1092 
V.  Petrich,  122  La.   127.  47 

So.  438   1107,  1122 

V.  Phelps,     Kirby      (Conn.) 

282    ■ 182 

V.  Phelps.  5  S.  D.  480.  59  X. 

W.   471    1112 

V.  Preble    County,    6    Ohio 

Dec.  268    ..'. 1150 

V.  Price.  Ill   INIo.  App.  42.). 

85  S.  W.  922    1122 

V.  Quarles,  158  Ala.  54,  48 

So.  499  .  .  1253,  1283,  1291 
V.  Ranev.  63  N.  J.  L.  363, 

43  Atl.  677  146 

V.  Rankin,  33  Neb.  266.  49 

N.  W.  1121  ....  1093,  1113 
V.  Rash.  (Del.)  78  Atl.  405  182 
V.  Pcedniond,  9  La.  Ann.  319  1205 
V.  Red  River  Turnpike  Co.. 

112  Tenn.  615,  79  S.  W. 

798  1152.  ncn 

V.  Reed,  49  i-a.  Ann.  704,  21 

So.  732  1107 

V.  Reid,  113  l.a.  890,  37  So. 

866  1100 

V.  Reynolds,  (Mo.)  15S  S. 

VV.  (171  n7S.  1272 

V.  Richardson,  122  La.  106). 

48  So.  458  1209 

V.  Ricliai'dsoii.  12.^   La.  (!I4. 

51    So.   673    117.') 

V.  Ri'.'litnr.      49      Ijm.      .\iiii. 

101.",,   22    Sn.    Ill',    ,  . 

1168,    1176,  1282 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Rilev,  219  Mo.  067,  118 

S.   W.   647    245 

V.  Robb,  90  Mo.  30,  2  S.  W. 

1 1107,  1122 

V.  Robinson.  101  Minn.  277, 

112     N.     W.     269,     20 

L.R.A.(N.S.)   1127   .... 

1143,  1145.  1157,  1164 
V.  Robinson,  26  Tex.  367  .  .  1187 
V.  Rocker,  130  la.  239,  106 

N.  W.  645    319,  1095 

V.  Rohrig    (la.)    139  N.  W. 

908  ..  1209.1216,1218, 

1230,  1231,  1245,  1261, 

1308,  1315 
V.  Rollins,  50  La.  Ann.  925, 

24  So.  664  146 

V.  Romero,      (N.     M.)      125 

Pac.  617   ..   1091,  1123,  1124 
V.  Root.  5  N.  D.  487.  67  N. 

W.  590.  57  Am.  St.  Rep. 

568  .  .  1192. 1196. 1206. 

1207.  1262,  1281,  1302 
V,  Rossman,  53  Wash.  1,  17 

Ann.  Cas.  625,  101  Pac. 

357,  21  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

821  .  .  34.  1169.  12."j3. 

1255.  1282.  1305 
V.  Rue,  72  Minn.  296.  75  N. 

W.  235  1107 

V.  Russell.   26   La.   Ann.   68 

1097.  1147,  1163 
V.  Russell.   83   Wis.   330.   53 

N.  W.  441  .  .  12.  17.  24. 

1093.  1099.  1106.  1114 
V.  Sachs.  2  Wash.  373,  26 

Pac.  865.  26  Am.  St. 

Rep.  857  .  .  1207.  1281. 

1302.  1330 
V.  Sachs.  3  Wash.  371,  28 

Pac.  540 612 

V.  SaH'ord.  145  la.  285  123 

N.  W.  107  104 

V.  St.  Louis,  1.  M.  &  S.  R. 

Co..  176  Mo.  718,  75  S. 

W.  888  1153 

V.  Sale,  188  :\Io.  493.  87  S. 

W.  967  1276 

V.  Salge.  2  Xev.  321 1090 

V.  Saline  Countv,  00  Ncl). 

275,  83  N.  \\'.  70  .... 

1091.  1092 

V.   Sclildss.  92  Ind.  293 

1153.  1153 
V.  Sclinmachcr.     21     N.     1). 

591,  132  N.  W.  143....      182 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxliii 


r  References 

State  V.  Scott,  80  Tex.  321,  24  S. 

W.  789   1328 

V.  Seattle  Cas,  etc..  Co.,  28 

Wash.  488,  68  Tac.  046, 

70  Pac.  114    ....    1145. 

1146.  1152 
V.  Seavey,  137  Mo.  Ajjp.  1. 

119  8.  W.  17..  936,  937,     939 
V.  Seibert.  130  Mo.  202,  32 

S.  W.  670   1099 

V.  Sevmour,  69  N.  J.  L.  606, 

55  Atl.  91    1152 

V.  Shearman.   51   Kan.   686, 

35  Pac.  455   1118 

V.  Sheriff'.  45  La.  Ann.  162, 

12  So.   189    1160 

V.  Shinner.    76    la.    147.    40 

N.  W.    144    1106 

V.  Shour.    196   Mo.   202.   95 

S.   W.    405    328 

V.  Shreves,    81    la.    (il5,   47 

X.   W.   899    1106 

V.  Shiiff.    9    Idalio    115,    72 

Pac.  664    344.     345 

V.  Shnniate.  48  \Y.  Va.  359, 

37    S.    E.    618     ..     31. 

1294.  1296.  1308.  1328.  1330 
V.  Simmons.     43     La.     Ann. 

991.  10  So.  382   .  .   713,     714 
V.  Slocum.    Ill    Minn.    328, 

126  N.  W.  1096    ....      1116 
V.  Smith,    50    Kan.    69.    31 

Pac.    784    1094.  1123 

V.  Smitli,    107    La.    129.    31 

So.   693.  1014    .  .    1099. 

1100.  1113 
V.  Smith.    176    Mo.    90.    75 

S.  W.  586 1327.  1329 

V.  Smith.  138  N.  C.  700,  50 

S.  E.  859   176 

V.  Smith,  8  Ohio  Dec.    (Re- 
print)   136.   5    Cine.   L. 

Bnl.   881    1100 

V.  Snowden.    23    Utah    318. 

65  Pac.  479  .  .  155.  165. 

176,  188,  196 
V.  Sopher,  157  Ind.  360,  61 

N.  E.  785  1163 

V.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  24 

Tex.  80  1150 

V.  Soutliern  R.  Co.,  82  S.  C. 

12,  62  S.  E.  1116  .... 

1157.  1160.  1161 
v.  Southwestern  R.  Co.,  66 

Ga.  403  1162 

V.  Spolcane.  44   Wash.    688. 

87  Pac.  944  .  .  375,  376,     378 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Squires,   1  Tvler  147..      198 
V.  Stafford,  145  la.  285,  123 

N.  W.   167    193 

V.  Standard     Oil     Co.,     194 

Mo.      124,     91      S.      W. 

1062   267 

V.  Stark,  72  Mo.  37  1122 

v.  Start,  7  la.  499  1302 

V.  State  Bank,  5  Mart.  N. 

S.  (La.)  327  ..  1150,  1152 
V.  Steers,  12  Idaho  174,  83 

Pac.  104  1106 

V.  Sterrett,    68    Li.    76,    25 

N.   W.   936    206 

V.  Stiles.  48  W.  Va.  425.  37 

S.   E.  1)20    ..    31.   1169, 

1172,  1281,  1302.  1307. 

1308.  1328 
V.  Stringfellovv,  128  La.  463. 

54   So.   943    1311 

V.  Swaff'ord.   98  Ta.  362.  67 

N.  W.  284   .  .   176.  181, 

187.     194 
V.  Swan,    60    Kan.    461.    56 

Pac.   750    1175 

V.  Sweeney.    93    Mo.    38.    5 

S.  W.  614 1095.  1110 

V.  Tabor,    63    Kan.    542.    66 

Pac.  237.  55  L.R.A.  231  331 
V.  Tall,    43    Minn.    273,    45 

N.  W.  449    171 

V.  Tally.    102    Ala.    25,    15 

So.   722    196 

V.  Tanner.    49    Ore.    31,    88 

Pac.  301   1317 

V.  Tavlor.  98  Mo.  240.  11  S. 

W.  570   1107.  1111 

V.  Tavlor,  93  Mo.  App.  327, 

67  S.  W.  672  . .  1099.  1121 
V.  Taylor.  10  Ohio  378  .  .  773 
V.  TaVlor.   07   W.   Va.   585. 

OS   S.  E.  379    857 

V.  Thompson.  36  Mo.  66..  1149 
V.  Thompson.  64  Tex.  690.  .  1153 
V.  Tii-lie,  27  Mont.  327,  71 

Pac.   3    1107 

V.  Tilghman,  6  Iowa  496  .  . 

424.  433 
V.  Tough.  12  X.  D.  425.  96 

X.  W.  1025  1098. 

1100.  1112 
V.  Tracv.  115  la.  71.  87  X. 

W.  727  .  .  1286,  1321,  1324 
V.  Trewhitt.  113  Tenn.  561. 

82  S.  W.  480  1096 

V.  Trinkle.  70  Kan.  396.  78 

Pac.  854  1114,  1115 


ccxliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

State  V.  True,  110  Tenn.  294,  95 

S.  W.  1028    840 

V.  Tueker.  46  Ind.  355  .  .  1090 

V.  Tuller.  34  Conn.  280  ...   482 

V.  Tunstall.  51  Te.x.  81 

1282,  1331 

V.  Tyler,  122  la.  125,  97 

N.  W.  983  1117 

V.  Union  Nat.  Bank,  145 
Ind.  537,  44  N.  E.  585. 
57  Am.  St.  Rep.  209..   443 

V.  U.  S.  Fidelity  &  Guaran- 
ty Co.,  135  Mo.  App. 
160,  115  S.  W.  1081  .  .  1055 

V.  Van  Buskirk,  59  Ind. 

384  157,  183 

V.  Vandalia,   119    Mo.   App. 

406.  94  S.  W.  1009 1155 

V.  Vianna,  37  La.  Ann.  606  ]46 

V.  Viau.x,  8  La.  Ann.  514 .  .  1099 

V.  Van  Martels,  10  Ohio 
Dec.  (Reprint)  819,  11 
Cine.  L.  Bui.   154    ....      126 

V.  Walker,  30  Xeb.  501,  46 

N.  W.   648    1093 

V.  Wallace,  24  Ohio  St.  597  1125 

V.  Walton,  53  Ore.  557,  99 
Pac.  431,  rehearing  de- 
nied 53  Ore.  566,  101 
Pac.  389,  102  Pac.  173 

1096,  1097 

V.  Waple.s,  12  La.  Ann.  343 

96,       99 

V.  Ward,    61     Vt.    153,    17 

Atl.  483    1^03,   1107 

V.  Watkins,  3  Mo.  480 

1294    1313 

V.  Wedge,  24  Minn.  150...'   1128 

V.  Welhes.   11   S.   D.   86.   75 

N.   W.   820    1156 

V.  Wells,    54    Kan.    161,   37 

I'ac.  1005 1107 

V.  Wells.   8   Nev.    105    ....    1096 

V.  Wentler,  76  Wis.  89,  44 
X.  W.  841,  45  N.  W. 
816   716 

V.  White,    19    Kan.    445.    27 

Am.  Rep.  137    224 

V.  White.  21  N.  J).  444.  131 

X.  W.   261    1163 

V.  Wliitesider,   49    La.    Ann. 

352.  21  So.  540   146 

V.  Whitnev.    9    Wash.    377, 

■M     I'ac.    473     I<t9:! 

V.  Whitworth,  26  .Mont. 
107,   66    Pac.    748    ... 

1101,  1106,  1118 


are  to  pages.] 

State  V.  Wilcox.  90  Kan.  80,  132 

Pac.    982    183 

V.  Williams,    4    Idaho    502, 

42  Pac.  511   1122 

V.  Wilmhusse,  8  Idaho  008, 

70  Pac.  849  328 

V.  Wilson,  24  Kan.  189.  36 

Am.  Rep.  257  1107 

V.  Wilson,  200  Mo.  23,  98 

N.  W.  68  1112,  1121 

V.  Wilson,  2  Lea  (Tenn.) 

204  149 

V.  Wines,  21  Mont.  464.  54 

Pac.  562  1308 

V.  Winton,  11  Ore.  456,  5 
Pac.  337.  50  Am.  Rep. 

486  1169,  1273,  1274 

V.  Woodside.  31  X.  C.  490  328 
V.  Young,  30  Fla.  85,  11  So. 

514  1306 

V.  Zachritz,  166  Mo.  307,  65 
S.  W.  999,  89  Am.  St. 

Rep.  711  1150,  1153 

State  Bank  v.  Davidson,  7  Colo. 

App.   91.  42   Pac.   687    ..      995 
V.  Green,  8  Xeb.  297,  1  X. 

W.   210    504 

V.  Martin.  4  Ala.   615    

768.   770,   771,     945 
V.  Martin.      52      La.      Ann. 

1628.   28   So.   130    ....      858 
V.  Strvker.   1   Wheel.   Crim. 
(X.  Y.)  330   ....   1187, 

1259,  1265 
V.  Wilson,  19  La.  Ann.  1..      '^55• 
State  Bar  Assoc.  Ex  p..  92  Ala. 

113,  8  So.  768,  12  L.R.A.  134  1306 
State  liar  Commission  v.  Sulli- 
van,   35    Okla.    745,    131    Pac. 
703    .  .    22.   1109,   1170,   1196. 
1199,   1293,   1294.   1300.  1305.  1308 
State    Board    of    Examiners    v. 
Byrnes,    93    Minn.    131, 

100   N.  W.   645    1307 

V.  Dodge.  93  .Minn.  160,  100 

X.   W.   684    1307 

V.   Lane.  93    Minn.  425.  101 

X.    W.    613    1231 

V.  Reynolds,    98     .Minn.    44. 

107    \.   W.   144    1186 

State  Board  of  Law  Kxamiiicrs 
V.  Hart,  104  .Minn.  88. 
15  Ann.  Cas.  197,  116 
X.    W.    212.    17    L.R.A. 

(N.S.)  .-)85 1194, 

1195,  1197,  1201 


TAULE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlv 


[References 

State  Hoard  of   Law   Kxaiiiiners 
V.  Williams.    116    Teiin.    51, 

92  S.  W.  521    1250 

Statts.   E.v   p.,   4   Cow.    (X.    Y.) 

76 608,     615 

Steadnian  v.  Hocklev,  15  M.  & 

W.    (Eiig.)    553    .  .' 695 

Steamboat   Josepli    Pierce.    Case 

of,   14   Op.   Attv.-Cen.    541    ..    1138 
Stearns   v.   Feiker.   28   Wis.   594 

671.  675.  687,  760,     761 

V.  Stearns,  10  Vt.  540 149 

V.  Wollenbero.  51  Ore.  88, 
92  Pac.  1079,  14  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  1095  .  .729.  736, 
978.  995.  1004.  1009. 
1015,  1043,  1044,  1047.  1079 
Stebbins  v.  Brown,  65  Barb.  (X. 

Y.)  272  311,  318 

V.  Morris.   18   Mont.  32,   44 

Pac.   280    1175 

Steckler,  Re.  146  App.  Div.  827, 

131  X.  Y.  S.  766 1219.  1227 

Steed  V.  Knowles,  79  Ala.  44(5.  . 

633,  635.  637.  639.  643,     649 
Steel  V.  Gordon,  14  Wash.  521, 

45  Pac.  151   888,     955 

Steele    v.    Gunn,    49     Him     610 
mem.,   3   X".   Y\   S.   692 

622,     624 
V.  Hammond.  136  App.  Div. 
667.  121  X.  Y.  8.  589  .  . 
701.  781,  786.  788.  789. 

790,  791,  887,  942,     962 
V.  Jennings,    1     ^IcMul.    L. 

(S.   C.)    297    .  .        '•VS.     484 
V.  Tennent,  1  Cai.    (X.  Y.) 

68,   Col.  &   C.  Cas.   169     450 
Steenburgh    v.    Miller,    11    App. 

Div.  286,  42  X.  Y.  S.  333  ....      261 
Steenerson     v.     Waterburv.     52 
Minn.  211.  53  X.  W.  1146    .  . 

791.     933 
StefTe  v.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  150 

Mass.   262.  30  X.  E.   1137    .  .      416 
Stein  v.  Blake,  56  111.  App.  525     908 
V.  Kremer,    112    X.     Y.     S. 

1087 560.     586 

Steinert,  Re,  24  Hun  (X.  Y.)246     619 
Steinkamp    v.    Gaebel.     1    Xeb. 
(unofficial)  Rep.  480,  95  X.  W. 

684    458 

Steinman,  Ex.  p..  95  Pa.  St.  220, 
40  Am.  Rep.  637.  reversing  8 

W.  X.  C.  296 1176.  1177, 

1203,  1204.  1259.  1261,  1265, 

1272,  1286,  1302,  1305,  1327 


are  to  pages.] 

Steinmever  v.  Steinmcver,  55  S. 

'C.  9.  33  S.  E.  15  ..269,     270 
Steinson  v.  Board  of  Ivluc-atiiin, 
76   App.    Div.   012,    78   X.   Y. 

S.   703    241 

Stempcl   v.  Thomas,  89   111.   146 

847.     848 
Stenton,   Re,   53   -Misc.   515.   105 

X.  Y.  S.  295    992.   1007, 

1030.  1087 
Stenzel  v.  Sims.  25  111.  App.  538  531 
Stephani,  Re,  75  Hun  188,  20  X. 

Y.  S.  1039   445 

Stephens.  Re.  77  Cal.  357,  19 
Pac.  646,  84  Cal.  77,  24 
Pac.  46  ....  315,  1207, 

1213,  1291,  1317 
V.  Badcock,  3  B.  &  Ad.  354, 

23  E.  C.  D.  93 521 

V.  Downey,  53   Pa.   St.   424     552 
V.  Dubois.  31  R.   1.  138,  76 
Atl.   656,   140   Am.   St. 

Rep.  741    300 

V.  Farrar,  4  Bush   (Ky.)    13 

1047,   1050 
V.  Hecht-Brettingham      Co., 
7  Ga.  App.  178.  66  S.  E. 

400   1075 

V.  Hill.  10  M.  &  W.   (Eng.) 

28    1268 

V.  Metropolitan   St.   R.   Co.. 
157   Mo.  App.  656.   138 

S.    W.    904    1046, 

1063,  1064,  1065.  1085 
V.  Xashville.  etc.,  R.  Co., 
10  Lea  (Tenn.)  448  .  . 

448.  805.  1041 
V.  Vroman,  16  X.  Y.  381..   345 
V.  White,  2  Wash.  (Va.) 
203  ....  549.  550,  564, 

565,  583.  584.  587.  588 
Stephenson  v.  Allison,  123  Ala. 

439,  26  So.  290  778 

Stern,  Re,  120  App.  Div.  375, 

105  N.  Y.  S.  199  

1209.  1218,  1219,  1315 
Re,  137  App.  Div.  909.  121 

X^.  Y.  S.  948  1180,  1303 

v.  Daniel,  47  Wash.  96,  91 

Pac.    552    221 

V.  State  Board  of  Dental 
Examiners,  50  Wash. 
100,  96  Pac.  693.  .1107,  1108 
Sterne  v.  Bentlev,  3  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)'331,  1  Code 
Rep.  109   445,     494 


CCxlvi  TABLE    Ol-     CAKES. 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Sterne  v.  Golp.  20  Hun   (X.  V.)  Stewart    v.    Hibernian    Hanking 

396     834.     835  Ass'n,   78   HI.   596    450 

Sterrctt   v.    Miles.   87    Ala.   472,  v.  Hoare,      2     JJro.     C.      C. 

6  So.  356  530  (Eng.)   663    721 

Sterry,    Succession    of,     38     La.  v.  Houston,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  G2 

Ann.  854  784          Tex.  248  .  .  665.  742.  743 

Stevens  V.  Adams,  23  Wend.  (N.  v.  L.  &  N.  R.  R.  Co.,  4 

Y.)  57 696,  781,  869         Ky.  L.  Rep.  718 1040 

V.  Colby,  46  N.  H.  163   506                v.  :\Iinnesota    Tribune    Co., 

V.  Ellsworth.  95  la.  231.  63  40  Minn.  101,  41  N.  W. 

N.  W.  683    790,  457,    12    Am.    St.    Rep. 

791,924,928.930,933,     939  696    141 

V.  Fassett,  27  Me.  266 v.  New     York     C.     PI..     10 

638,  639,  641,  048                       Wend.   (N.  Y.)   597   ...      860 

V.  Fuller,  55  N.  H.  443.  ..  .  v.  Potts.  49  Miss.  749    ...  .        96 

420.  422.  436               v.  Robinson,  76  Cal.  164,  18 

V.  Handly,   Wright    (Ohio)  Pac.   157    912 

121        851                V.  Sonneborn,  98  U.  S.  187, 

V.  Monges,    1    Har.     (Del.)  25   U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    116     632 

127        701,  871.  872               v.  Spragne,  71  Mich.  50.  38 

V.  Reed,  37  N.  H.  49.  .233,  N.  W.  673    269,     451 

367,     475  V.  State.  24  Ind.  142 1163 

V.  Sheriff,   76  Kan.    124,   90  v.  Stewart,  56  How.  Pr.  (N. 

Pac.      799.     11      L.R.A.  Y.)   270.  .257,  424,  432,     433 

(N.S.)   1153  ..543.728.  765               v.  Welch.   41   Ohio   St.   483     729 

V.  Walker,  55  111.  151  .  .548  Stewart    Paper    Co.    v.    Bosby- 

552.  553,  570                       shell,   14  Mo.  App.  534     463 

Stevenson  v.  Kingston.  31  U.  C.  Stilley   v.    McXeal,   219    Pa.    St. 

C.  P.  333   709  533,  69  Atl.  58    357 

V.  Stevenson,    3    Edw.     (N.  Stillnian  v.  Whitney,  1  How.  Pr. 

Y.  340    2(50.201,     262  (N.  Y.)    243    474 

Steward   v.    I'.irldlecuni.   2   N.   Y.  Stillwater    First    Nat.    Bank    v. 

103,  10()   ....   500,  504,  505            Larsen,  60  Wis.  206.  19  N.  W. 

V.  Ritrgs,   10   Me.   467    ....      328  67,  50  Am.  Rep.  365   778 

Stewart,  ^Re.   21    Misc.   412,   47  Stilhvell  v.  Padgett,  22  Ark.  164     434 

N    Y    S    1065  950       Stihvell  v.  Armstrong,  28  Misc. 

Re.  178   Fed.  463    822  546,  59  N.  Y.  S.  671   1049 

V.  Be-^gs.    56    Fla.    565,    47  Stimpson  v.  Sprague,   6  Green  1. 

So.  032    ....    701,780,     790  (Me.)    470    582.     591 

V.  Blair,  171  Ala.  147.  Ann.  Stincsville.    etc..    Stone    Co.    v. 

Cas.  1913A  925    54  So.  White,  32  ]\Iisc.  135.  65  N.  Y. 

506   632.642,  643           S.  609, _reversin_q_  25  :\Iisc.  314. 

V.  Codrington,  55    Kla.  327, 

45   So.   809    134 

V.   Emerson.    70     Mo.    App. 

482    890,  960.  9(;4 

V.  Fleck,  43  Hun  (i3(i  mem., 
6    N.    Y.    St.    Rep.    524 

261,  981 
V.   I''iowers.   44    .Miss.   513.   7 

Am.  Rep.  707 97(5, 

977.  978.  990,  994.  1005, 
1006,  1024,   1030,  103.^.. 

1030.  1037 

V.   Il.-ill,  K3  K  V.  37.".    .  .    lis,  121 

V.   Hall,  17   Manitoba  G53 .  .  1045 


54   N.   Y.   S.   577    342, 

490 

Stiiinard  v.  New  York  Fire  ins. 

Co..   1    How.    Pr.    (N.   Y.)    169 

488 

Stiiison    V.    Aultman.    etc.,    Co., 

54    Kan.    537,    38    Pac. 

788    

606 

V.   Ilihlrni..   8   Piss.   370,   23 

l''cd.  Cas.  No.   13,459.  . 

18 

Stiniermiiiin       v.       Cowing,       7 

.lolins.  Cli.    (N.   Y.)    275    

245 

Stith  V.  Winb.ish.  3  La.  442   ... 

246 

Stil/.el,  He.  221   Pa.  St.  227.  70 

All.  749,  18  L.R..'\.(N.S.)    613 

150 

Sl.'ckdi   V.    I'.itrick,  29   L.  T.   N. 

S.  (Kng.)   r,U7   

908 

TABLE    OF    CASES, 


ccxlviL 


[References 

Stockholm  v.  Rohhins,  24  Weiul. 

(N.  Y.)  109   873 

Stocking  V.  Knight,  19  ]11.  App. 

501   .; 396 

Stocking's      Succession,     6      La. 

Ann.  229   411 

Stockley  v.  Hornidge,  8  C.  &  V. 

11,  34  E.  C.  L.  272 523 

Stockman  v.  Wliitmoi-e,  140   la. 

378,  118  N.  W.  403    908 

Stockton  V.  Ford.  11  How.  (U. 
S.)  232,  13  U.  8.  (L.  ed.)  676 

296,  301,  302 
Stockton  Sav.  &  Loan  Soc.  v. 

Donnelly.  60  Cal.  481  .  .  1042,  1046 
Stockwell,  Case  of.  7  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.  311 1273,  1275 

Stoddard    v.    Kendall,    140    la. 
688.  119  X.  W.  138    .  . 

157,  164,  165.  170,     210 
V.  Lord,     36    Ore.     412.     59 

Pac.  710   995,     998 

Stoddart,    Re,    J 14   Fed.    48G,    7 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  762   628 

Stokelv  V.  Robinson,  34  Pa.  St. 

315  ' 385,  489,     491 

Stokoe  V.  St.  Paul,  etc..  R.  Co., 

40  Minn.  545,  42  N.  W.  482.  .  202 
Stoll  V.  Sheldon.  13  Xeb.  207.  13 

X.  W.  201  ....  391.  395,  409,  410 
Stolp,  Re.  199  Fed.  488  .  .  818,  826 
Stolts  V.  Tuska,  82  App.  Div.  8], 

81  N.  Y.  S.  638   630 

Stone  V.  Bank  of  Commerce,  174 

U.  S.  412,  m  S.  Ct.  747, 

43  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    1028 

229,  231.  352.  451,  483,     484 

V.  Hart,   66   S.   W.   191,  23 

Kv.  L.  Rep.  1777    953 

V.  Hvdc,  22  Me.  318 

998.  1003.  1055.  1086 
V.  Minter.  Ill  (ia.  45,  36  S. 
E.  321.  50  L.R.A.  356. . 
157,  158,  159.  160.  184, 

205,   207,     330 
V.  Schenectady    R.    Co.,    99 
App.  Div".  44,  90  X.  Y. 

S.   742    267 

V.  Slatterv.     71     Mo.    App. 

442    ■ 312,     314 

V.  Stitt,  56   Tex.  Civ.   App. 

465.  121   S.  W.  187    .  .      215 
V.  Swift,    4    Pick.     (Mass.J 

?89.  16  Am.  Dec.  349.  .      632 
V.  Wilsun,  56  S.  W.  817,  22 

Kv.    L.    Rep.    190    841 

Stone's  Case,  1  Lev.   (Eng.)   265     114 


are  to  pages.] 

Stoneburner   v.   Motley,   95   Va. 

784,  30  S.  E.  364   84? 

Stoneman,  Re,  53  Am.  Rep.  325 

note    45 

Stones  V.  Bacon,  11  Jur.   (Eng.) 

44,  1  Saund.  &  C.  248  ....  32{> 
Stopp  V.  State,  144  8.  W.  941.  .  132 
Storey  v.  Murphy,  9  N.  D.  115, 

81  N.  W.  23   1097 

Story  V.  Hawkins,  8  Dana  (Kv.) 

12    ." .  .      507 

V.  Hull,  143  HI.  506.  32  X. 

E.  265.  artinuing  41  111. 

App.  109   ....   736.  737, 

771.869.  964,  981.  1031.  1076 

V.  Lutkins,  77  Misc.  17,  135 

N.  Y.  S.  118   847 

v.  Satterlee,    13    Daly     (X. 

Y.)    169    ." 685 

Stotsenburg   v.    Marks.    79    Ind. 

193    ..  ..  ; 674 

Stott  v.  Harrison.  73  Ind.  17..      560 
Stotts.  Re.   93   Fed.   438,  1   Am. 

Bankr.   Rep.   641    817,     819 

Stout  V.  Smitli,  98  X".  Y.  25.  50 

Am.  Rep.  632  ....   234.     276 

V.  State.  90  Ind.  1    145 

Stout   Coal   Co.   V.   O'Donnell.   4 

Kulp  495   231 

Stoutenburgh  v.  Fleer,  87  N.  Y. 
8.  504    .r  701,  733.  739.  781, 

871.     913 
Stow    V.    Hamlin,    11    How.    Pr. 

{N.  Y.)  452  .  .  779.  910,  911  916 
Stowe  V.  U.  S.,  19  Wall.  13.  22 

U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  144 377.     400 

Strange  v  Brennan,  15  Sim. 
(Eng.)  346.  affirmed  in  2  Coop, 
t.  Cot.  1.  15  L.  J.  Ch.  389.  10 

■^m.  649    670.     729 

Stratemever.  Re,  14  Am.  Bankr. 

Rep.  120    817 

Strattner    v.    Wilmington    City 
Electric    Co.,    3    Penn.    (Del.") 
453.  53  Atl.  436  ....  383.  399.     415 
Stratton  v.  Henderson.  26  111.  69     327 
V.  Hussev.  62  j\le.  286   .... 

983.  996,  1048 
Strauss  v.  Dundon,   (Tex.)  27  S. 

W.  503   859 

V.  Francis,  L.-  R.  1  Q.  B. 
379,  7  P.  &  8.  365.  12 
Jur.  X.  S.  486.  35  L.  J. 
O.  B.  133.  14  L.  T.  N.  S 
326,    14    W.    R.    634.. 

402,     488' 
V.  Mever,   48   111.   385    533^ 


cexlviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Straus  V.  Youim'.  36  Md.  246..      650 
Straw-Ellswortli     .Mfo.     Co.     v. 
Cain,   20   Wash.   351,  55   Pac. 

321   685 

Strawn  v.  Strawn.  46  111.  412.  .      848 
Stream    v.    Llovd,    128    111.    493, 

21  N.  E.  533^ 433,     437 

Streeter  v.  Johnson,  23  Nev.  194, 

44   Pac.   819    4()1 

Strehlow  v.  Pettit.  96  Wis.  22. 

71  X.  W.  102   637 

Strickland  v.  Capital  City  Mills. 
74   S.  C.   16,  54  S.  E.'  220.  7 

L.R.A.(N.S.)  426   217,     220 

Strike,   Re,   1    Bland.    (Md.)    57 

872.     874 
Stringer   v.   Breen.    7   Ind.   App. 
557,   34    N.   E.    1015.. 

884,     881) 
V.  Dean.  61  Mich.  196,  27  N. 

W.  886  461 

Strinsjfield  v.  Hirsch.  94  Tenn. 
425.  29  S.  W.  609,  45  Am.  St. 

Rep.  733    859 

Strinjjiunn    v.    Stewart,    8    Civ. 

Pro.  (X.  Y.)  420 13 

Strobel.    Re.    163    Fed.    380,    20 

Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  754   630 

Strodtman    v.    ISIenard    County, 

56  111.  App.  120   550 

Stroemer  v.  Van  (^rsdel.  74  Xeb. 
132,  103  X.  W.  1053.  121  Am. 
St.  Rep.  713,  4  L.R.A.(X.S.) 
212,  afllrnied  on  rehearing,  74 
Xeb.  143.  107  X.  W.  125.  121 
Am.    St.    Rep.    722,    4    L.R.A. 

(X.S.)   218   728.  752.     872 

Strohecker    v.    Hoffman.    19    Pa. 

St.  223    576,     729 

V.  Irvine,  76  Ca.  639,  2  Am. 

St.  Rep.  62    ....    1026.  1028 
i^trong  V.  District  of  Columbia,  3 

M:ic.\rthur   (1).  C.)   499     488 
V.  International   Bldg..  etc.. 
Union,   183    111.    97.    55 
N.    E.    675.    47    L.R.A. 
792,     affirming    82     111. 

Ap[).  42(i .•{07,  :!()S. 

309.   750.     949 
V.  McConiicl,  :,   Vt.  338      .  . 

932,  962 
V.  Miiiulv.  52  N.  .1.  !<:(].  833, 
31  .\tl.  611,  rcversiiiir 
52  X.  .1.  K(|.  744.  30 
Atl.  322  ....  (111.  616. 
619.  704,  723.  770.  781. 

8G2.     871 


are  to  pages.] 

Strong    V.    Smith,    98    111.    App. 

rrll     407,     439 

V.  Taylor,    82    Ala.    213,    2 

So.   760    1022 

V.  West,    110    Ca.    382,    35 

S.  E.  693  893 

Strother  v.   State,   1  Mo.   605..    1328 
Stroud    V.    Casey.    25    Tex.    740, 

78  Am.  Dec.  556   267 

Strough  V.  Gear.  48  Ind.  100   .  .      777 
Strout    V.    Bradbury,    5    CIreenl. 

(Me.)   313"^ 541 

y.  Durham,  23  ]\Ie.  483   ...      439 
V.  Proctor.   71   Me.   288    ...    1187 
Stroyd     y.     Pittsburg     Traction 

Co.,  15  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  245...      501 
Struby-Estabrook         Mercantile 
Co."y.  Kyes.  9  Colo.  App.  190, 

48  Pac.  "663    642 

Struckmeyer  v.  Lamb.  64  Minn. 

57,  65  X.  W.  930.  .280.     281 
y.  Lamb.   75   :\Iinn.   366,   77 

X.  W.  987   159 

Struffman   y.   Muller,    74    X.   Y. 

594    545 

Stryker.  Re,  1  Wheel.  Crim.   (X. 

Y.)   330    1266 

Stuart  y.  Walkup,  114  X.  Y.  S. 

483    560 

Stubbs  V.  Beene,  37  Ala.  627..  571 
y.  Leavitt,  30  Ala.  352.  .415  432 
y.  Ripley,  39  Hun    (X.  Y.) 

G26" 852 

Stubinger  v.  Frey,  116  (ia.  39r). 

42  S.  E.  713  .'.....  283,  286,  287 
Stuck  y.  Reese,  15  la.  122.  .358,  383 
Stucky  y.  Smith.  148  Ky.  401. 
146'S.  W.  1128  ....  784,  924, 

925,  926,  928 
Students,  etc..  Re,  (Cal.)  110 

Pac.  341  71 

Studwell  V.  Palmer,  5  Paige  (X. 

Y.)    57 126 

Stump  V.  Cahy.  2  De  (i.  M.  &  (L 

(Eng.)    623" 273 

Stunz  V.  Stunz.  131   111.  210.  23 

X.  E.  407 848 

Stuyvesant  v.  I'eckham,  3   lOdw. 

.''.79    166 

>^ucc('ssi(in  of — see  name  of  |):irty. 
Such   V.   Xew  York  State  B:nik. 

121   Fed.  202   796,     806 

Sudlinv  V.  Kno.x.  4  .\1)1).  Dec.  (X. 
Y.)    326,    7    .\I.b.    I'r.    (X.    S.) 

411    852 

Sn<;artnaii  v.  .Mandolin.  88  X.  Y. 

S.   393    681 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccxlix 


[Roforenccs 

Sullivan,  Re,   185  Mass.  420,  70 

N.   K.  441    1338 

V.    Dunhani,    35    Ap]).    Div. 

342.  54  N.  Y.  S.  962.  .      478 
V.   Fraiizrc'l).   148   App.   Div. 

728,  132  N.  Y.  S.  1117     176 
V.    Grace,    5    IMo.    App.    594 

574      597 
V.  Hall,   86   Mieh.   7,  48    N.' 

W.  646. 13  L.R.A.  556..      131 
V.    McCann,    113    App.    Div. 
61,  37  Civ.  Pioc.  113.  98 

N.  Y.  S.  947 1050. 

1066,  1067 
V.    McCann,    115    Ajip.    Div. 

146,  100  N.  Y.  8.  739..    1068 
V.    MfCaiin.    124    App.    Div. 
126.   108   N.   Y.   S.   909 

808,  1070 
V.  New   Y^ork,   68  Hun  544, 

22  N.  Y.  S.  1041.. 972.     973 
V.  O'Keelc,  53  How.  Pr.   (N. 

Y.)  426   805,  1040 

V.    Pcav.son,    L.    R.    4    Q.    B. 
(Eng.)     153,    38    L.    J. 

Q.  B.  65    977,  1029 

V.  Susono.  40  S.  C.  154,  18 

8.  E.  268  267,     466 

V.    Walker     (Miss.)     12    So. 

250    296,  299,     302 

Sullv,  Re,  142  Fed.  895.  15  Am. 

Bankr.    Rep.    304     824 

Sulzbacker      v.      Wilkinson,      1 
White  &  W.  Cir.  Cas.  Ct.  App. 

§    994    792 

Summers  v.  Taylor.  80  Kv.  429     287 
Supplee  V.  Hall.'  75  Conn.  17.  52 

Atl.  407,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  188     215 
Supreme    Court    of    Texas,    96 

Te.v.  637    73 

Surber  v.  State,  99  Ind.  71  ....  1122 
Surface  v.  Bentz,  228  Pa.  St. 
610,  21  Ann.  Cas.  215,  77  Atl. 

922  167,  194,  196 

Suspension    Bridge    v.    Bedford. 
46  Hun  675.  10  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 

850    480 

SussdorlT  v.   Schmidt,   55  N.   Y'. 

320    729 

Sutheiland  v.  Reeve.  41  111.  App. 

295.  151  111.  384,  38  N.  E.  130 

279,   292,    293,   294.    299. 

301,  302,     306 
Sutlilf  V.  Clunic.   (Cal.)   :57  Pac. 

224     294,     301 

Sutton    V.    Dic'ciiison.    9    Leigh 

(\'a.)    142    491 


are  to  pages.] 

Sutton     V.     Doggett,     3     Beav. 

( Eng. )    9    .' .  ■ 842 

V.  McConnell,  46  Wis.  269, 

50  X.  W.  414    650 

V.  State.  16  Tex.  App.   490     226 
Suwannee     Turpentine     Co.     v. 
Baxter,  109  Ga.  597,  35  S.  E. 

142 1079,  1083 

Suydam,  Re,  84  Hun  514,  32  N. 
Y.  S.  449,  affirmed  152 
N.    Y.    639,    46    N.    E. 

1152   289,     290 

V.  Pitcher.  4  Cal.  280    ....      444 
V.  Vance,  2   McLean  99.  23 
Fed.    Cas.     No.     13,657 

550,  553,  584,     589 
Swadener,  Re.  5  Ohio  Dec.  598. 

2  Ohio  Leg.  N.  478 1169, 

1222,  1227 
Swain    v.    Humphreys,    42     111. 

App.  370 170,     171 

Swannell   v.   Ellis,   1   Ring.   347, 
8  E.  C.  L.  542,  8  Moo.  C.  PI. 

340    566,     582 

Swanson  v.  Cliicago.  etc.,  R.  Co., 

35  Fed.  638   .  .  249,  804,  1039,  1044 
Swanston  v.  Morning  Star  Min. 
Co..   4   McCrary   241.   13   Fed. 

215   804.  1009,  1039 

Swartz  v.  Earls.  53  111.  237 363 

v.   Frank.   183   Mo.   439.   82 

S.  W.  60    827 

V.  Morgan.  163  Pa.  St.  195. 
29  Atl.  974.  975.  43 
Am.  St.  Rep.  786.  .235, 

372,  893.     894 
Swavne     v.     Swayne.     19     Pa. 
Super.  Ct".  160   ...   176, 

185,     186 
V.  Terrell,     20     Tex.      Civ. 

App.  31,  48  S.  W.  218  1124 
Swearingen  v.  Howser,  37  Kan. 

126,  14  Pac.  436    131.     132 

Sweeley  v.  Sieman,  123  la.  183. 

98  N.  W.  571   1082 

Sweeney,  Re,  86  App.  Div.  547, 

83  N.  Y^  S.  680   .  .  020,  1036 
v.  Kerr,   25   S.  W.   273,   16 
Ky.  L.  Rep.   33    ..243, 

312,     800 
v.   Pratt.  70   Conn.   274,   39 
AtL    182.    66    A.m,    St. 

Rep.   101    266 

Sweet  V.  Bartlett,  4  Sandf.    (N. 

Y.)   661 805,  1040, 

1046,  1053 


ccl 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Sweet  V.  Owens.  100  Mo.  1,  18  S. 

W.  928    197,     210 

Swett,  Re.   20   Pick.    (Mass.)    1     114 

V.  Bussey,  7  Mass.  503 848 

V.    South  worth,    125    Mass. 

417 377,     380 

Swift  V.  Lee,  65  111.  336 435 

V.  Perry,  13  Ga.  138 330 

V.  Register,  97  Oa.  446.   25 
S.  E.  315.  316    .  .    812. 

881,     910 
V.  U.  S..  128  Fed.  763    ....    1136 
Swinfen    v.    Chelmsford.    5    H. 

&  X.  (Eng.)  890  ..489,  552 
V.  Swinfen.  24  Beav.  549,  27 
L.  .T.  Cii.  35,  3  Jur.  X. 
S.  1109,  allirmed  in  2 
DeG.  &  J.  381,  27  L. 
J.  Ch.  491,  4  Jur.  X. 
S.  774,  6  W.  R.  480  .  .  402 
V.    Swinfen.    18    C.   B.    485, 

86  E.  C.  L.  485   488 

Svme    V.    Terrv,    etc.,    Co.,    125 
"App.   Div.   610.   110   X.   Y.   S. 

25    739.   755.   756.     764 

Synimes   v.   Major,   21   Ind.   443     242 
Svmonds    v.    Kimball,    3    Mass. 

'299    848 

Szok  V.  Crown,  33  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
612    597.     004 


538 
913 

431 

539 


Tal)l)ernor  v.  Tabhcrnor.  2  Keen 

(Eng.)    679.  6   L.  J.  Cii.   19.  . 

Taljet   V.    Powell,    (Tex.)    78    S. 

W.    997    740,    741,    883. 

Tabor    v.    Gilfilan,    58    Hun     (N. 
Y.)    608   mem.,   34   X.   Y.   St. 

Rep.   628    

Tacke.  lie.  1  Con.  Sur.  119,  3  X. 

Y.   S.   431    

Taft    V.    Xorthorn    Transp.    Co., 
56  X.   H.  414    ....    148 

149.     151 
V.  Sliaw,  159  Mass.  592.  ;!5 
X.  E.  88   ....   779,  781, 

933.     958 
V.  Wright.  47  How.  Pr.   ( X. 

Y.)    1    267 

'I'liggart  V.  P.oard  of  .Auditors  of 
\Va\iic        ('<iiiiit\-.        7!> 
Mifh.  n.'i.  40  X.  '\y.  852   1157 
V.   Ilower.    (I'a.)    17   All.   1". 

769,  782,     9(i2 


are  to  pages.] 

Takamori   v.   Kanai,   11   Hawaii 

1    22.> 

Talbert  v.  St(.rum,  66   Hun  635 

mom.,   21   X.   Y.   S.    719    460 

Talbot  V.  Mc(iee,  4  T.  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  375  ...  431.  477. 

487,  489.     492 
V.  Whiting,   10  Miss.  ."..■)9 .  .      541 
Talcott  V.  Bronson,  4   PaiL;e    (X. 

Y.)    501   ,  .    1040.  1048.  1075 
V.  Cowdry,  17  Misc.  333.  39 

X.  Y.  S.  1076 522 

Tallassee     Falls     Mfg.     Co.     v. 
Parks,    2    Ala.    App.    278,    56 

So.  588   857,     858 

Talliaferro     v.     Porter,     Wright 

(Ohio)    610,   611    ......    417,     418 

Tallman    v.    Truesdell.    3    Wis. 

443    773 

Tally  V.  Reynolds,  1  Ark.  99.  31 
Am.  Dec.   737    ....    415,   423. 

424.  429,  435.     518 
Talton,  Re,  137  Fed.  178,  14  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  617    819 

Tananevicz  v.  Laniczj'k,  134  111. 

App.  135   477 

Tancre    y.    Reynolds,    35    Minn. 
476,  29  X.  W.  171  .  .  273.  276. 

281,     283 
Tandy  v.  Riley,  (Ky.)   80  S.  W. 

776    .".....■ 646 

Tankersley      v.      Anderson.      4 
Dcsaus"(S.  C.)   44.  45   .  .   360. 

394.     410 
Tanner,    Ex   p.,   49   Ore.   31.   88 

Pac.   301    1316 

V.  Croxall,  17  X.  J.  L.  332..      967 
V.    Hopkins,    12    W.    X.    C. 

(Pa.)    238    492 

V.  U.  S.,  32  Ct.  CI.   (U.  S.) 

192   751 

Tapley      v.      Coffin.      12      Gray 

(.\[as8.)    420    668.     801 

Tni)lin  v.  ]\Iarcy,  81  Vt.  428,  71 

All.    72     .  .  .  .' 176 

Tarl)cll    V.     Dickinson,    3    Cusii. 

(.Mass.)  350   543,     545 

Tarr's    Estate,    21    Pa.    Co.    Ct. 

358   959 

Tarver  y.  Taryer.  53  Ga.  43    .  . 

979,  1071.  1086 
Tascott    y.    Grace.    12    HI.    Ajjp. 

639    889 

Talc   V.    Field.  60  X.  .1.  K(|.  42. 

46  All.  952   .  .741.  1211.  1217 
V.   'i\'ilr''s    Fxccut.ir,   75    \'a. 

r.).>  ■)0\ 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccli 


[Rofereiiccs 

Tatlock  V.  Louisa  Countv,  4(5  la. 

138   ■ 1098 

Tatom  V.  Wliitc>,  Of.  X.  C.  4;-):}.  .      270 
Taiissiii;  v.  St.  Louis  &  K.  R.  Co. 
186  "^Mo.    269,    85    S.   W.    378 

878      88' 
Tavlor,  Re,  48   ^h\.   28.  30   Am! 
Rep.  451   .  .   22.  34,  35, 

4(.       41 
Re,    6    Dowi.    &    R.    (Eng.) 

428   62 

V.     Alexander,     12     Quebec 

Super.  Ct.  159 709 

V.  American  Freehold  Land 
Mortg.  Co..  106  Ga.  238, 

32  S.  E.  153 492, 

494,     495 
V.   Armstead,   3   Call    (Va.) 

200   609,  615,     623 

V.  Badoux,  (Tenn.)  58  S.  W. 

919   784.  926,  934, 

082,   1052,  1062 
V.  Barker,  30  S.  C.  238,  9  S. 

E.  115 274,  279,     294 

V.   Bates,    5    Cow.    (N.    Y.) 

376 598,     601 

V.  Bemiss.  110  U.  S.  42,  3 
S.    Ct.    441.    28    U.    S. 

(L.    ed.)    64    673, 

728.  741.  745,     872 
V.  Black  Diamond  Coal  Min. 
Co.,  86  Cal.  589,  25  Pac. 

51  727,  1005 

V.  Blacklow.  3  Bing.  N.  Cas. 
(Kmr.)  235.  32  E.  C.  L. 
100.  3  Scott  614  .  .  294,     559 
V.  Boardman,  24  Mich.  287     300 
V.  Bosworth,  1  Ind.  App.  54, 

27  N.  E.  115    944 

V.  Branch  Bank.  14  Ala.  633     132 
V.  Easterling.  1  Rich.  L.  (S. 

C.)    310    503 

V.  Enthoven.  88  N.  Y.  S.  138  670 
V.  Evans,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App. 

409.  41  S.  W.  877 269 

V.  Evans,  29  S.  W.  172  .... 

214.  215,  385 
V.  Forster,  2  C.  &  P.  195.  12 

E.  C.  L.  85  172 

V.  Cilman,  58  X.  H.  417   ...      685 
V.  Gorman,     Flan.     &     Kcl. 

567.  4  Ir.  Eq.  550 537 

V.  Hailstone.  52  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
(Eng.)  101.  47  L.  T.  N. 

S.   440    90S 

V.  Hatch.  12  Johns.   (N.  Y.) 

340    131 


are  to  pages.] 

Taylor  v.  Hill,  ll.")  Cal.  143.  44 
Pac.    330,    40    Pac.   922 

408,     47.") 

V.  Hinton,  66  Ga.  743    670 

V.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  38 
App.  Div.  595,  6  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  341,  56  N.  Y. 

S.    (i(i.)     014,     874 

V.   Long   Island   R.   Co..   25 

Misc.  11,  53  N.  Y.  8.  83(1     861 
V.  New   York.    11   Abb.    Pr. 

(N.  Y.)    255    474 

V.  Perkins,  (Mo.)  157  S.  W. 
122  .  .  656,  664,  670, 

672,  676,  728,  795 
V.  Roulstone.  60  S.  W.  867. 
61  S.  W.  354,  22  Kv.  L. 

Rep.  1515  \...      183 

V.  St.  Louis  Merchants' 
Bridge  Terminal  R.  Co., 
207  Mo.  495,  105  S.  W. 
740  .  .  996.  1011.  1042,  1083 
V.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co., 
198  Mo.  715.  97  S.  W. 
155  ....  669,  673,  996, 
997,  1(110,  1011,  1012, 
1014.  1030.  1032.  1042,  1080 
V.  State,  49  Fla.  69,  38  So. 

380  1117 

V.  State,  (Tex.)  42  S.  W. 

285  1122 

V.  Stull,  79  Neb.  295.  112 

N.  W.  577  992, 

1030,  1032,  1052 
V.  Sutton,  6  La.  Ann.  709 

375,  466 
V.  Swett,  3  La.  33,  22  Am. 

Dec.  150  334 

V.  Welslager.  90  Md.  414, 

45  Atl.  478  443 

V.  Young,  56   Mich.  285.  22 

N.    W.    799     273. 

296,  302.  515,  1006 

Taylor  Iron  &  Steel  Co.  v.  Hig- 

gins,  60  Ilun  626  mem.,  20  N. 

Y.    S.    746,    appeal    dismissed 

137  N.  Y.  605,  33  N.  E.  744 

619,     620 
Taylor  Orphan  Asylum,  Re,   36 

Wis.  534 ." 297.     303 

Tays   V.   Carr,   37   Kan.    141.   14 

Pac.   456    l."5 

Teague  v.  Corbitt.   57   Ala.   543     548 
Teasley  v.  Bradlev.  110  Ga.  497. 
35  S.  E.  782,  78  Am.  St.  Rep. 

113  •  60e 


ccli 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Tedrick  v.  Hiner.   61  111.   189.. 

25,  104,     982 
Teich  V.  San  Jose  Safe  Deposit 
Bank  of  Savings,  8  Gal.  App. 

397.  97  Pac.  167 479 

Teller  v.  Hill,  18  Colo.  App.  509, 

72  Pac.   811    986.  995,  1003 

Temple,  Re,  33  Minn.  343,  23  N. 

W.  463    1218,  1220 

V.  Pasquotank  County,   111 

N.  C.  36.  15  S.  E.  886     33G 
V.  Phelps.  193  Mass.  297,  79 

X,    E.    482    195 

V.  State,  (Tenn.)  155  S.  W. 

388    1101,  1163 

Teniplin  v.  Ilenkle,  50  la.  95   .  .      880 
Ten    Broeck     v.    De    Witt,     10 

Wend.    (X.  Y.)    617    1048 

Tennant  v.  Fawcett.  94  Tex.  Ill, 
rjS  S.  W.  824,  reversincf 

55  S.  W.  Gil 770, 

771,     782 
V.  Kuhleraeier,  142  la.  241, 
19  Ann.  Cas.  1026.  120 

N.  W.  689 1126,  1128 

Tenney  v.  Berger,  48  Super.  Ct. 

11,  affirmed  93  X.  Y.  524.  45 

Am.   Rep.   263    ....    237,  241, 

242,   243,   244,   249.   800,   870,     952 

Terhune  v.  Colton,  10  X.  J.  Etj. 

21  359,     410 

Ternev    v.   Wilson,   45   X.   J.   L. 

282' 729,  735.  1055 

Terre    Haute     Brewing     Co.     v. 

Ward,  (Ind.)   102  X.  E.  395..      453 
Terre    Haute,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v. 
Mason.    148    Ind.    578, 

46  X.  E.  332   636 

V.  Salmon,  161  Jnd.  131,  67 

X.  E.  918    853 

Terrell  v.  Sparks,  104  Te.\.  191. 

135  S.  W.  519   1147,  1148 

Terrill,  Re.  103  Fed.  781,  4  Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.   ()25    817,     818 

Tciritory  v.  Cliong  Cliak  i^ai,  19 
Hawaii   437,   Ann.  Cas. 

l!)12i?  657 1106 

V.  Mann,  16  N.  M.  211,  114 

Pac.   362    1127 

V.  Mann,  16  N.  M.  744,  120 

I';ic.   313    1093 

V.  i:indsko|,r.  5  \.  M.  93.  20 

Pac.    180    859 

V.   Siiiifii,    3    Minn.    210,    74 

.\ni.   Dec.  719    1C94 


are  to  pages.] 

Terry,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Syme,  125 
App.  Div.  610,  110  X.  Y.  S.  25 

755,  756 
Tesh  V.  Com.,  4  Dana  (Ky.)  522  1092 
Tessier  v.  Crowley,  17  Xeb.  2i)l , 

22  X.  W.  422    .  .  .  .    125,  128,     129 
Test  V.  Larsh,  98  Ind.  301.  .248, 

250,  500,     501 
Teter  v.  Irwin,   09   W.   Va.  200 
Ann.    Cas.    1913A    707,    71    S. 

E.  115    245,  379,  496,     497 

Tevis   V.   Palatine   Ins.   Co.,   149 

Fed.  560    481 

V.  Rvan,   13   Ariz.   120,   108 

Pac.  461   341,     345 

Tewkesbury  v.  Beckwith,  46  111. 

App.    323    801 

Texas  Cent.  R.  Co.  v.  Andrews, 
28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  477,  67  S. 
W.  923  .  .  735,  737,  739,  765, 

810,  812 
Texas  Land,  etc..  Co.  v.  Robert- 
son. 38  Tex.  Civ.  App.  521, 

85  S.  W.  1020  777 

Texas  Mex.  R.  Co.  v.  Showalter, 
3  Willson  Civ.   Cas.   Ct.  App. 

§    69     973 

Thacker  v.  Dun,  1  Mo.  App.  41     576 
Thalheim  v.  State,  38  Fla.   169, 
20    So.    938     .  .     1102,    1106, 

1110,  1123 
Tliallhimer    v.    Brinckerhoff.    3. 
Cow.  (X.  Y.)  623,  15  Am.  Dec. 

308 674,     686 

Thatcher.  Re.  80  Ohio  St.  492, 
89  X.  E.  39  ....  1169, 
1170,  1176,  1177,  1178, 
1195,  llOG,  1202,  1203, 

12G2,  1265,  1209,  1289 
Re,  83  Ohio  St.  24G,  22  Ann. 
Cas.  810,  93  X.  E. 

895  1216,  1243, 

1280.  1334,  1336,  1338 
Re,  190  Fed.  969  .  .  15.  31, 
33,  1165,  IIGG,  1168, 
1172,  1173,  1174,  1187, 

1229,  1288,  1311 
Thayer  v.  Badacr,  171  Mass. 

279,  50  N.  K.  541  834 

V.    Daniels.    113    Mass.    129 

979,  1031 

V.  ]\lcEwen.  4   ill.  App.  416     187 

V.   Sherman,   12    Mass.   441,     529 

V.  Wales,  5   Fish.   Pot.  Cas. 

448,    23    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

13.872     413 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


ccliii 


[References 

Theisen  v.  Davton,  82  la.  74,  47 

N.  W.   891"^ 197 

Thirlwell  v.  Campbell,  11  Busii. 

(Ky.)   163,  164    848,     896 

Thomas,  Re,  16  Colo.  441,  27 
Pac.  707,  13  L.R.A.  .538 

16,  45.  47.  50,  51 
Re,  36  Fed.  242  ....  1231,  1232 
V.  Ervin,  Cheves  L.   (S.  C.) 

22,  34  Am.  Dec.  586   .  .      588 
V.     Fiiilay.son,     19     W.     R. 

(Eng.)    255    539 

V.  (iiinin,  1   Incl.   App.  457, 

27  N.  E.  754   179 

V.  Harris,    27    L.    J.    Exeh. 

353    402 

V.  Hewes,  2  C.  &  M.  ( Ena:. ) 
519,    4    Tyrw.     (Ena;.) 

335    402,   488     490 

V.  Jarden,    57    Pa.    St.    331      441 
V.  Kerr,   137   111.  App.   479 

638,  039,     042 
V.  Mahone,   9   Bush.    (Ky.) 

Ill    945 

V.  Morrison,  92  Tex.  329,  48 
S.  W.  500,  modifying 
46  S.  W.  40 .  .  242,  243, 

297.  465,  765,  lOGG 
V.  Painter,    10    Phila.    409, 

32  Leg.  Int.  90    033 

V.  Pavnter.     1     \V.     N.     C. 

(Pa.)    300   650 

V.  Roberts,    5    Dana     (Ky.) 

189 608,  611,  616,     617 

V.  Schee,  80  la.  237,  45  N. 

W.  539    556,     584 

V.  State,  58  Ala  365.. 1282,  1291 
V.  Steele,  22  Wis.  207  .  .418, 

432,     585 
V.  Turner,  87   Va.  1,   12   S. 
E.   149,   668. .274,   279, 
281,  284,  724,  741,  747, 

748,     750 
V.  Vandermoolen,    2    B.    & 
Aid.     (Eng.)     197,     20 

Rev.    Rep.    404     537 

V.  Wiltbank,  6  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)   477,  30  Leg.  Int. 

105    353,     358 

Thomas    Bros.    Co.   v.   Price,   56 

Fla.  854,  48  So.  262 342 

Thomas  E.  Lynch  Co.  v.  Wayne 
Circuit  Judge.  129 
Mich.  110,  88  N.  W. 
387   131 


are  to  pages.] 

Ihomasson     v.     Lalourelle,     63 

App.  Div.  408,  71  N.  Y. 

S.  558,  559.  .  .612,  785,   1069 
V.  Townsend,        10        Bush. 

(Kv.)     114    773 

Thompson,  Ex  p.,  10  N.  C.  355 

36,       3» 
Ex.  p.,  32  Ore.  499,  52  Pac. 

570,  40  L.R.A.  194 

1107,  1268. 
Re,  (Cal.)  45  Pac.  1034..  1331 
Re,  46  Kan.  254,  26  Pac. 

674  1197 

V.  Beacon  Val.  Rubber  Co., 

56    Conn.    493,    16    Atl. 

.554    370,     453 

V.  Blackhurst,    1    N.   &    M. 

271,    28    E.    C.    L.    316     414 
V.  Boyle,   85   Pa.   St.  477.. 

873,  931,  935,  936,  1022 
V.  Carr,  13  Bush.  (Ky.)  215 

1114,  Ilia 
V.  Cashman.   181    Mass.   36, 

62  N.  E.  976   183 

V.  Cooper,   2   Col.   Ch.   Cas. 

( Eng. )    87    842. 

V.  Dickinson,       159      Mass. 

210,  34  N.  E.  262.. 242, 

565,     584 
V.  Emerson,    118    Mo.    App. 

232,  94  S.  W.  818 881 

V.  Emmert,  15  111.  415 440 

V.  Gordon,    4    Dowl.    &    L. 

(Eng.)     49,    15    M.    & 

W.  610,  15  L.  J.  Exch. 

344    61G 

V.  Ilatcli,   4  N.   ]?runs.   425     525 
V.  Hemenway,    218    111.    46, 

75  N.  E.  791,  109  Am. 

St.   Rep.   239    415 

V.  House,  23  Tex.  178.  .510,     511 

V.  Kilborne.  28  Vt.  504 192 

V.  Kilborne,  28  Vt.  750,  67 

Am.  Dec.  742   189 

V.  Knickerbocker  Ice  Co.,  0 

N.  Y.  S.  7,  allirmed  127 

N.  Y.  671,  28  N.  E.  255     785. 
V.  Lobdell,     7     Rob.     (La.) 

369    548.     565- 

V.  Lumley,     50     How.     Pr. 

105    640' 

V.  Minor,      35      Leg.      Int. 

(Pa.)   244   873-. 

V.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.,  134 

Mo.   App.    591,    113    S. 

W.   1142 404,   400,  lOOi 


ccliv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Thompson  v.  Moore,  1   Dowl.  X. 
S.    (Eng.)    283,   5   Jur. 

]009    115 

V.  Odum,    31    Ala.    108,    08 

Am.  Dec.  159 4.59 

V.  Pershing,   86   Ind.   303 .  . 

492,  494,  495,  507 
V.  Powning,  15  Nev.  195..  850 
V,  Price,  ]00  Mich.  558,  59 

X.  W.  253 642 

V.  Reynolds,  73  111.   11..  .. 

662.   071.     728 
V,  Ft.    Worth    &    R.    G.    R. 
Co.,   31    Tex.  Civ.  App. 

583,  73  S.  W.  29 483 

V.  Stiles,  44  Misc.   334,   89 

X.  Y.  S.  876 13,  83,     081 

V.  Thompson,        3        Head 

(Tenn.l    527   906 

V.  Thompson,  65  S.  W.  457, 
23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1535.  . 

993,  1023 
V.  Watson,  48  Ohio  St.  552. 

31    X.    E.    742 1146 

V.  Wilson.    29    Ga.    539 186 

V.  Wise  Boy  Min.  etc.,  Co., 
9    Idalio    363,    74    Pac. 

958    854 

Tliompson   Milling  Co.,   Re,    144 
Fed.  314,  16  Am.  Bankr.  Rep, 

454    823 

Thomson,    Re,   20   Beav.    (Eng.), 

545.    1    Jur.   X.   S.    718     515 

V.  Findlater  Hardware  Co.. 

(Te.\.)     156    S.   W.   301 

838.  973,  1016,  1035,  ]087 

V.  Patek,  235  111.  341,  85  X, 

E.    003,    affirming    138 

111.  App.  418    414 

Thon  V.  Com.,  77  Va.  289    ....    1149 
V.    Rochester     R.     Co.,     83 
Hun    443,   30   X.   Y.   S. 

620    329 

Thorn    v.    Beard,    60    Hun    579 
mem.,   14  X.    V.  S.   :{39 

89 1 ,     893 
V.  Beard,    135    N.    Y.    643 
mem.,   32   X.   E.    140.. 

910,     !>46 
V.  Eawson,  6  Tex.  240.  .22, 

23,      109 
I'jiornhurg   v.    Macauii'v,    2    Md. 

Cli.    425    '. 4S7,     531 

Thornliili      v.      Fvans.     2      Atk. 

(Eng.)      .''.30,      332.      Black . 

Com.    2(1    vol.    24,    2.")    . 

09."),  (i!)7,     808 


arc  to  pages.] 

Thornton  v.  Commonwealth 
Loan,  etc.,  Assoc,  181 
111.  456,  54  X.  E.  1037 

772,     773 
V.  Tuttle,   20   Abb.   X.   C  as. 
308,    7    X.   Y.   St.    Rep. 

801    403 

V.  Tuttle,  44   Hun    (X.  Y.) 
624  mem.,   7   X.  Y.  St. 

Rep.   801    462,     463 

Thorj}    V.    Fowler,    5    Cow.     (X. 

Y.)    446    258,     504 

V.  Goewey,  85  111.  611..  154     190 
V.  Ramsey,    51    Wash.    530, 
99  Pac.  584  ..875,  878, 

884,   910,     904 
Thrall  v.  Wright,  38  Vt.  494.. 

718,     719 
Thrasher  v.  Greene  County,  105 

Mo.  244,   16  S.  W.  955     960 
V.  Moran,   146  Cal.  083,  81 

Pac.  32    770 

Threadgill  v.  Shaw,    (Tex.)    148 

S.  W.  825   798 

Thresher,   Re,    29    Mont.    11.    73 

Pac.    1109    839,  1225 

Re,  33  Mont.  441,  8  Ann. 
Cas.  845,  84  Pac.  870, 
114  Am.  St.  Rep.  834 
1218,  1219,  1205,  1269, 

1273.  1282 
V.  Barry,  69  Conn.  470,  37 

AtlV  1064    719 

V.  Stonington  Sav.  Bank, 
68    Conn.   201,    36    Atl. 

38    328 

Thurber   v.    Eastern    Bldg.,   etc., 
Assoc,  116  X.  C.  75,  21  S.  E. 

193    030 

Thurston    v.    Percival,    1    Pick. 
(Mass.)   4 15.. 602,  070, 

701,  750,   760,     701 
V.  Wright.   77   ]\licli.  96,  43 

X.   W.   800    640 

Thweatt    v.    Freeman,    73    Ark. 

575.   84  S.  W.   720.. 273,  284.     285 
Til.b.'t  v.  Sue,    125  Cal.  544.  58 

I'ac.    100    224 

Tiehenor  v.    Hayes,  41    X.  J.  L. 

193.   32   Am.    Itep.    180    591 

'I'ienian  v.  Ilichards.  7   Mo.  A])p. 

,")!»7    561 

Tillany  v.  Diiii^s,  13,I()liiis.    (N. 

Y.)    252    115 


TABLE    OF    Cx\SES. 


cclv 


[References 

Tiffany  v.  Hess,  67  Misc.  258, 
122  N.  Y.  S.  482.  af- 
tirnied  140  App.  Div. 
J)3;>,  125  N.  Y.  S.  1147 

o'.)r),     50(i 
V.  Lord,    40    How.    Pr.    (N. 

Y.)   481    489 

V.  Morgan.    (11.  I.)    73  Atl. 

465    782,  885,     954 

V,  Stewart,    60   la.   207.    14 

N.  W.  241    1056 

Tift.  Re,  11   Fed.  463    851 

Tilden,   Re,    (Cal.)    25  Pac.  687   1272 
Tilden   v.  Aitkin,   37   App.  Div. 
28,    29    Civ.    Proc.    28,    55    N. 

Y.  S.  735   681,     683 

Tillingliast,  Ex  p.,  4  Pet.  108,  7 

U.    S.    (L.   ed.)    798 1174,  1311 

Tillman    v.    Reynolds,    48    Ala. 

365 1036,  1087 

Tilton   V.    U.    S.    Life   Ins.   Co., 

8  Daly   (N.  Y.)   84   489 

Tilton  V.  Wricrht,  74  Me.  214,  43 

Am.  "Rep.  578 545 

Timberlake  v.  Crosby,  81  Me. 

249,  16  Atl.  896 768,  945 

Timm  v.  Timm,  34  Wash.  228, 

75  Pac.  879 378,  385,  405 

Timolat   v.   S.   J.   Held   Co.,    15 

Misc.    (N.  Y.)    630,  37  N.  Y. 

S.  221    472 

Tindol  V.  Beasley,    (Tex.)   40  S. 

W.  155    782,     891 

Tingley  v.  Parshall,  11  Neb.  443, 

9  N.  W.  571    475 

Tinkliara    v.    Hevworth,    31    111. 

519    .' 600 

Tinnev  v.  Pierrepont,  18  App. 
Div'.   627,   45   N.  Y.   S.   977 .  . 

781,  788,     944 
Tippecannoe  County  v.  State,  92 

Ind.  353 '. 1156 

Tippett  v.  Brooks,  28  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  107,  67  S.  W.  512,  af- 
firmed 95  Tex.  335,  67  S.  W. 

495,  512    284,     286 

Tipton,  Re,  4  Idaho  513,  42  Pac. 

504  1272,  1273 

V.  Mavfield,  10  La.  180 416 

Tisdale    v^    The    Bark    H.    W. 

Almv.  4  Hawaii  503..      267 
V.  Trov,"  152    Ala.    566,    44 

So.   601    888 

Title  Guarantee  &  Trust  Co.  v. 
Stombersj.  119  App.  Div.  28, 
103  X.  Y.  S.  857    749 


are  to  pages.] 

Title  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Irenton  Potteries  Co., 
56    N.    J.    Eq.    441,    38 

Atl.   422    337 

V.  Wnnii,    35    Ore.    62,    56 
I'ac.    271,    76    Am.    St. 

Rep.   454    854 

Tito   v.   Seaburv,    18    xMisc.   283, 

41  N.  Y.  S.  1041 369,  396, 

397,     398 
Titus,  Re,  (id  Hun  632  mem..  21 

N.   Y.   S.   724    . .    1218,   1264 

Re,  5  Ont.  92   1168 

v.  Johnson,    50    Tex.    224..      189 
Tobin      V.      Gannon,     34     Nova 

Scotia   9    J 42 

Tobler  v.  Nevitt,  45  Colo.  231, 
16  Ann.  Cas.  925,  100  Pac. 
416,  132  Am.  St.  Rep.  142, 
23  L.R.A.(N.S.)   702   ...   249, 

251,  463,     509 
Todd   v.   Daniels,    153   111.   App. 

223    477 

V.  Howell,     47     Ind.     App. 

665,  95  N.  E.  279 852 

V.  Munson,  53  Conn.  579,  4 

Atl.    99 .      200 

V.  Wilson,   9    Beav.    (Eng. ) 

486    273,     279 

Toland  v.  Ventura  County,   135 

Cal.   412,    67    Pac.   498.. 1099,  1147 
Tolbert  v.  State   (Ga.)    78  S.  E. 

131     345,     485 

Toley  V.  Keiher,   81    Ind.   383..      779 
Tomeny  v.  German  Nat.  Bank,  9 

Heisk.    (Tenn.)    493    487 

Tomkin  v.  Harris,  90  Cal.  201, 

27    Pac.    202    149 

Tomlinson  v.  ^lonroe  County, 
134  la.  608,  112  N.  W. 

100    715,  716,     816 

V.  Polslev.  31   W.  Va.   108, 

5  S.'  E.  457.. 250,  325,     793 
Tompkins  v.  Nashville,  C.  &  St. 
L.    R.    Co.,    110    Tenn. 
157,  72  S.  W.  116,  100 
Am.    St.    Rep.    795,    61 

L.R.A.  340 1010, 

1015,  1043,  1044.  1078 
v.  Woodford,  1  Pa.  St.  156  408 
Toms  v.  Beebe,  90  la.  612,  58 

N.  W.  925  200 

Tomsky    v.    Su])erior    Ct.,     131 

Cal.  620,   63   Pac.   1020 Oil 

Tone  v.  Shankland.  110  la.  525, 
81  N.  W.  789  981 


cclvi 


TABLK    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Tong  V.  Orr,  44  Ind.  App.  OS  I, 
87  N.  E.  147,  rehearing  de- 
nied. 44  Ind.  App.  69;},  88  X. 

E.  308    741,   7CG,     886 

Tooker    v.   Sloan,    30    X.   J.    Eq. 

394    376,     378 

Tootal  V.  Spicer,  4  Sim.    (Eng.) 

510    842 

Tootle    V.    Smitli,    34    Kan.    27, 

7   Fac.  577    131 

Tootle-Weakley  jNIillinerv  Co.  v. 
Billingsley,  "74   Xeb.  531,   105 

X.   W.   8.5    562 

Topeka  Water  Supply  Co.  v. 
Root,   56   Kan.    187",    42    Pac. 

715   766 

Toplitz  V.  Meyer,  34  Misc.  786, 

69   X.   ¥.8.-849    235 

Topolewski  v.  Plankinton  Pack- 
ing Co.,  143  Wis.  52,  126  X. 
W.  554.  35  L.R.A.(X.S.)    353 

633,   635,   641,  644,   646,     647 
Topp  V.  Pollard.  24  Miss.  682   .  .      537 

Torcliia,  Re,  185  Fed.  576    823 

Torrence  v.  Sliedd,  112  111.  466, 

053,  654,     085 

V.  Strong,    4    Ore.    39     006 

Towle  V.   Bradley,  2   S.  D.  472, 

50  X.  W.  1057 125,     130 

V.  Hatch,  43  X.  H.  273 543 

Tovyn  v.  Tabor,  34  ]\Iich.  202..      678 
Townley  y.  Jones,  8  C.  B.  X.  S. 

289,   98   E.   C.   L.   289    566 

Townsend    y.    Ditto,    6    Ky.    L. 

Rep.  290    ". 570 

V.  J>omer,  15  Ciy.  Proc.  8, 

2  X.  Y.  S.  703    682 

V.  Meyers,  142  App.  ])iv. 
851,  127  X.  Y.  S.  451, 
modifying  123  X.  Y.  S. 

1(175   '. 804 

V.  Oneonta  C.  &  K.  S.  R. 
Co.,  41  Misc.  295.  84  X. 

Y.  8.   117    1148 

V.  Rhea,   38   S.    W.   S(;5,    18 

Ky.   L.    Rep.   901  .  .7(i4.     956 
Toy  V.  Haskell,  128  Cal.  .558,  01 

i'ac.   89,   79   Am.   St.    Rep.   70     S()7 
Tracy,   Re,   1   App.  Diy.   113,  37 
X.  Y.  S.  65  anirmed  149 
N.    Y.    008,    44    X.     K. 

1129    012.     838 

Re,  1.50  Ai)p.   Div.  913.    135 

X.   Y.  S.  29    1228 

Train   v.   Cold,   5    Picl;.    (  .Mass.) 

380    520 


are  to  pages.] 

Trainor,  Re.  146  App.  Div.  117,* 

130  X.  Y.  S.  682    218 

Trammell    y.    Ramage.    97    Ala. 

666,  11   So.  916    859 

y.  Shropshire,   22   Tex.   327 

611,  014,     017 
Trapnall    y.    Byrd,    22    Ark.    10 

839,     951 
Trapp   y.    State,    120   Ala.    397, 

24    So.    1001     1125 

Travellers'    Ins.    Co.    y.    Patten, 
119    Ind.   416,   20   X.    E.    790 

370,     378 
Travis  y.  Hill,  2  How.  Pr.    (X. 

Y.)     246     474 

y.  January,    3    Rob.     (La.) 

227    ." 199,     202 

y.  Willis,  55  Miss.  500 719 

Treadway  v.  Sioux  City,  etc..  R. 

Co.,  40  la.  520    " 341.     345 

Treadwell,    Re,    67    Cal.    353,    7 

Pac.  724    1218 

Re,  114  Cal.  24,  45  Pac.  993  1332 

Re,   (Cal.)   4  Pac.  1192 1171 

Re,  23  Fed.  442,  9  Sawy.  29     784 
y.  Bruder,    3    E.   D.    Smith 

(X.  Y.)    597    431 

Treakle    v.    Vaughan,    83    Ark. 

258,  103  S.  W.  174 910- 

Treasurer  of  Vermont  v.  Brooks. 

23  Vt.  098    1115- 

Treasurers  v.  McDowell,  1   Hill 
L.    (S.  C.)    184,  26  Am.  Dec. 
166.. 249,   250,   252,   362,    390     411 
Treat  v.  Jones,  28  Conn.  334.. 

750,     753 
V.  Tolman,  113  Fed.  892,  51 
C.   C.   A.   522   allinuing 
106   Fed.  079.  .  .14,    Ki,     430 
Treftz  V.  Stalil,  40  111.  App.  402, 

18    L.R.A.   500    471,     474 

Trenton  St.  R.  Co.  v.  Lawlor,  74 
X.    J.    Eq.    828,    71    All.    234, 

74  Atl.  668 209,     404 

Trentor  y.  Pothen,  40  Minn.  298, 
49    X.    W.    129,    24    Am.    St. 

Rep.    225     269' 

Trezvant  v.  State,  2  S.   W.  5S2       97 
Trigg   y.    State,    49   Tex.   045.. 

1127,   1128 
Trimbh'  v.  Acme  Mills  iV:    I'.'leva- 
tor    Co.,    151    Ky.    570, 
152  S.  W.  501    ".  .    924, 

92(>,     928 
V.  (iMiudian   Trust  Co.,  241 
.Mo.  228,  1  18  S.  W.  934 

712,   !l()2,     944 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclvii 


[References 

Trimble  v.  Kansas  Citv,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  180  Mo.  ,'574,  1 
Ann.  Cas.  363.  79  S.  W. 

678    t).'J4,  Oo.^,     9G3 

V.  Kansas  City,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
201  Mo.  372,  ]00  S.  \V. 

7    788,  7!)0,     904 

V.  Texarkana,    etc..    R.    Co., 
199   Mo.    44,   97    S.   \V. 

]C4 780,  7S],  887, 

89."),     902 
Trimmier  v.  Thomson,  41  S.  C. 

]25,  19  S.  E.  291    544 

Triplett    v.    Mockbees.    5    J.    J. 

Marsh.   (Ky.)   219   803 

Trippe,  Ex  p.  66  Ind.  531.. 85, 

1287,  1288,  1324 
Trist  V.  Child,  21  Wall.  441.  22 

U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    623 754,     981 

Tron  V.  Lewis,  31  Ind.  App.  178, 

66  N.  E.  490    '.  .  .664.     730 

Trope  V.  Kerns,  83  Cal.  553,  23 

Pac.  691   383,     499 

Trotter  v.  Smith,  59  111.  240 .  . 

279,     282 
Trowbridge  v.  Weir,  6  La.  Ann. 

706    355 

Troy  V.  Hall,   157   Ala.  592.  47 
So.  1035.. 248,   730,   798,   799, 

831,     833 
Troy   Carriage   Works   v.   Mux- 
low,  16  Misc.  56],  38  X.  Y.  S. 

938   471 

Triiett  V.  Wainwright,  4  Oilman 

(111.)    420    443 

Truitt  V.  Darnell,  65   N.  J.  Eq. 

22],  55  Atl.  692    871 

Trumbore,   Ex   p.,   39    Leg.   Int. 

(Pa.)   356   1246 

Re,  2  Penny.    (Pa.)    84,   ]4 

Lane.    Bar.    ]27..1323,  1325 
Trumbull    y.    Nicholson,    27    111. 

149    249,  391.     392 

Trust    y.    Repoor,    15    How.    Pr. 

(N.   Y.)    570.. 237.    254,    261,     974 
Trustees    of    Princeton    Uniyer- 
sity  V.  Wilson,  78  N.  J.  Eq.  1, 

78   Atl.  393    1154 

Trusts,  etc..  Co.  v.  Hart,  32  Can. 

Sup.  Ct.  553   289 

Tuck  V.  Manning,  53   Hun  455, 
17   Civ.  Pro.   175,  6  X.  Y.  S. 

140    263,  1005 

Tucker   v.    Bu<^ts.    6    Ga.    580..      529 
y.  Finch.  66  Wis.  17,  27  X. 

W.    817    328 

V.  Tilton,  55  X.  H.  223 270 


are  to  pages.] 

Tudor   V.   Com.,   84   S.   W.   522, 

27  Ky.  L.  Rep.  87 1213, 

1307,   1308 
Tugwell    V.    Hooper,     10     Beay. 

.348,   16  L.  J.  Ch.   171    183 

Tuley   y.   Barton,   79   Va.   387 .  . 

552,     571 
Tull  V.  Xash,   141    Fed.  557,  73 

C.  C.  A.  29   .  .719,  731,     954 

V.  State,  99  Ind.  238 

1101,  1325' 
Tuller  y.  Arnold.  98  Cal.  522,  33 

Pac.   445    679- 

Tullis  y.  Bushnell,  12  Daly    (X. 
Y.)    217,    65    How.   Pr.    465.  . 

1075.   1081 
Tullock  y.  Cunningham,  1  Cow. 

(X.  Y.)    256    328,     434 

Tunstall  y.  Winton,  31  Hun  (X. 

Y.)   219   860' 

Tuppery    v.    Hertune:,     46    Mo. 

135    '. \ 495 

Turnan  y.  Temke,  84  111.  286.. 

244,  246,     501 
Turnbull  y.  Banks,  22  App.  Div. 
508,   48   X.   Y.   S.   40.  . 

274,     746 
y.  Richardson,      69       Mich. 

400,  37  X.  W.  499 

936,  940,   941,     942 
V.  Ros.s,  5  Daly  (X.  Y.)   130 

936,     954 
Turner,   Ex   p.,  49   Ore.  227,  89 

Pac.   426    1297 

Re,  139  Cal.  85,  72  Pac.  718     244 
Re,  107  Pa.  St.  609,  31  Atl. 

867    195 

y.  Bates,   10   Q.   B.  292,   59 

E.  C.  L.  292    130 

V.  Boger,    126    X.    C.    300, 
35  S.  E.  592,  49  L.R.A. 

590   775> 

V.  Campbell,  59  Ind.  279..      407 
y.  Caruthers,  17  Cal.  431.. 

415,  425,     437 
y.  Com.,  2  Mete.   (Ky.)   619 

1284,  1288,  1321,  1324,  1326 
V.  Crawford,  14  Kan.  499..  1057 
V.  Davis,   2   Denio    (X.   Y.) 

187,  2  How.  Pr.  86  .  .  436 
V.   Dinnegar,    20    Hun     (X. 

Y.)   465   650 

v.  Fleming,       (Okla.)       130 

Pac.  551    385,     400 

V.  Hearst,   115  Cal.  394,  47 

Pac.  129   133,     139 


<:'C'lviii  table  of  cases. 

[References  are  to  paj^'cs.] 

Turner  v.  Johnson,  TOG  Kv.  460,  Tyler,   Re,   78   Cal.  307,  20  Rac. 

50  S.  W.  075    .  /. 851  674,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  55  1319 

y.  Mvers,   23   la.   391.. 779,  v.  Cockrell,  107   S.  VV.  799, 

888,   898,     902  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1120.. 

V.  Revnall,    14   C.   B.   N.   S.  570,     577 

328.    108   E.   C.   L.   328       26  v.  Hall,    106    Mo.    313,    17 

V.  Rookes,  10  Ad.  &  El.  47,  S.  W.  319,  27  Am.  St. 

37  E.  C.  L.  35   905  Rep.  337    200 

V.  State.    89   Tenn.   547,    15  v.  Hamilton,    108   Kv.    120, 

S.  W.  838  1112  55  S.  W.  920,  21  Ky. 

V.  Tapscott,  30  Ark.  312  L.  Rep.  1510  857 

840,  1017  V.  Presley,  72  Cal.  290,  13 

V.Turner,    123    Ga.    5,    50  Pac.'  856     1328 

S.  E.  969,  107  Am.  St.  v.  Slemp,   124   Ky.  209,   90 

Rep.    76    187,     189  S.  VV.  1041   996,1052 

T.  Turner,  .33  Wash.  118,  74  y.  Superior    Ct.    30    R.    I. 

Pac.   55    443  107,    73    Atl.    467,    23 

V.  ^Yalker,     3     Gill     &     J.  L.R.A.(N.S.)     1045 

(Md.)      377,     22     Am.  677,  988,  1015,  1041 

Dec.   329    636  v.  Trabue,  8  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 

V.  Walsh,     12     Rob.     (La. )  306    "...      334 

383   1176,  1272,  1305  v.  Tyler,    126    111.    525,    21 

V.  Warren,  160  Pa.  St.  336,  N.   E.   610,   9   Am.   St. 

28  Atl.  781,  34  W.  N.  Rep.   642    183,     215 

C.  245 201,  202.     203  Tynan  v.  Mart,  53  Misc.  49,  103 

V.  Yates,    16    How.    14,    14  'N.  Y.  S.  1033 992,  1060,  1080 

U.S.    (L.  ed.)    824 340  Tyng    v.    American    Surety    Co., 

Turner's  Appeal,   72  Conn.  305,  174  N.   Y.   166,  66  N.  E.  668     859 

44  Atl.  310 162,  104,  187,  Tyrrel  v.  Hammerstein,  33  Misc. 

194,     216  505.  8  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas. 

Turno  v.  Parks.  2  How.  Pr.  N.  432,  67  N.  Y.  S.  717.. 

S.    (X.  Y.)    35 988,  1030,  1054  544,  462,     463 

Turo;uand  y.  Knight,  2  M.  &  \V.  v.  Milliken,    135    Mo.    App. 

(Eng.)    98 163.     193  293,   115   S.  W.  512    ..      463 

Tuttle  y.  Claflin,  86  Fed.  964..  v.  London    Bank,    10   H.   L. 

780,   785,   1029,  1060  Cas.    (Eng.)    26,  8  Jur. 

V.  Claflin,    88    Fed.    122.   .59  N.  S.  849    278 

U.   S.   App.   602,   31    C. 
C.  A.  419,  affirming  Si) 

Fed.  964 423,  767,     897  U 

V.  Polk.    84    la.    12,    50    N. 

W.  38 856  Uehleim  y.  Burk,  119  Iowa  742, 

V.  Polk.   92    la.    433,   60   N.  94    N.    W.    243    416 

W.  733   856  Uhl  y.  Kohlmann.  52  App.  Div. 

Tutus.    Re,    60    Hun    6.32    mem..  455,  65  X.  Y.  S.  197 528 

21  N.  Y.  S.  724 1219,    1220  I'lrich    v.    People.    39    ]\lich.   245    1102 

Twiggs  V.  Chambers,  56  Ga.  279  Ulster   County   y.    Brodliead.   44 

1047,   1049  How.    Pr.    (X.    Y.)    411.. 254, 

Twort    V.    Dayrell,    13    Yes.    .)r.  259,  262,  264.  457.     974 

( Eng.)   195' 261  Underfe.'d  Stoker  Co.  y.  Amcri- 

Tyler  V.  \Vcl.l),   1-1    I'.eav.   (i'".!!;;.)  can    Sliip    Windlass    Co.,    165 

'14  613     Fed.  65  41.'> 

Tvler,  Ex  p.,  107  Cal.  78.  40  Underwood  v.  Com.,  105  S.  W. 

I>ac.  33  1275,  1299  151.  32  Ky.  L.  Ren.  32 

Rf,  71  rnl.35:!.  12  I'.ic.  289,  1187,  1258,  ^260,  1261. 

13  I'ac.  1(;9..232,  364,  1266,  1268,  1307 

1218,  1210      y.  Hart,  23  Vt.  120 341 


TABLE    or    CASES. 


celix 


[References 

Underwood  v.  Lewis.  [18!)4]  2  Q. 

B.  ( Eii!^. )  :iO(i,  G4  L.  J. 
Q.  B.  ()().  70  L.  T.  \.  S. 
833,  42  W.  R.  517.  !) 
Rep.  440 243.     244 

Unprer  v.  Bitser,  3  Lane.  L.  Rev. 

(Pa.)     360 4G0 

Union  Banlc  v.  Geary,  5  I'et.  !)8, 
8   U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    fJO.. 

250.   251,   502,     507 
V.  Govan.    10    Sniedes  &    ^l. 

(JMiss.)    333    409.     410 

Union  Bldjr.,  ete..  Assoe.  v. 
Soderqiiist,  115  la.  G95.  87  N. 
W.    433.  .008,    G0<).    612.    G15. 

GIG,    G18.   619,   620,     G21 
Union  Cent.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cald- 
well,  68    Ark.   505,   58   S.   W. 

355    334 

Union    I\Ifg.    Co.    v.    Pitkin,    14 

Conn.  174   .' 458 

Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bu- 
chanan, 100  Ind.  63. . 
312,  390,  519,  773,  838. 

873.    947,     9G0 
V.  Thomas,  83  Fed.  S03.  48 
U.   S.   App.   575.   28   C. 

C.  A.    9G    .  .    419,    533,     535 
Union  Naval  Stores  Co.  v.  Pugh, 

156   Ala.   369,    47    So.   48 420 

Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Connolly, 
77  Neb.  254,  109  N.  W. 

368   344 

V.  Day,    68    Kan.    726,    75 

Pac.   1021 175,   187,     J  91 

Union  Slaughterliouse,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Crescent  City  Live  Stock 
Landing,     etc..     Co..     41     La. 

Ann.  355,  6  So.  508   G20 

Union  Suretv,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Ten- 
ney,  200  111.  349,  65  N.  E. 
688,  affirming  102  111.  App.  95 

705,   706.    792,   869,     871 
United  R.  Co.  v.  O'Connor,  153 
Mo.  App.  128.  132  S.  W.  262 

261.   808,  1042 
U.  S.  V.   Beebe,    127   U.   S.   338. 
8  S.  Ct.  1083,  32  U.  S. 

(L.   ed.   121     1137 

V.  Beebe.  180  U.  S.  343,  21 
S.    Ct.    371,    45    U.    S. 
(L.  ed.)   563.  .380,  383,     387 
V.  Bliss,   12   App.  Cas.    (D. 

C.)    485    1304 

V.  Bovd,  79   Fed.  858.  .842. 

843,  972,     977 


are  to  pages.] 

U.  S.  v.  Chandler-Dimbar  Water 
Power  Co.,  152  Fed.  25, 
81  C.  C.  A.  221,  af- 
lirmcd  209  U.  S.  447, 
28  S.  Ct.  579,  52  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)   881    n4'> 

V.  Clark,    76    Fed.    560     .  . 

1289.   1292 

V.  CofTin,  83  Fed.  337.. 273.     275 

V.  Conner.    3    McLean    573. 

25  Fed.  Cas.  No.  14,847     628 

V.  Costen.  38  Fed.  24   .  .   56, 

307,  315.  1212 

V.  Crosthwaite,  168  U.  S. 
375,  18  S.  Ct.  107,  42 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  507.  re- 
versing 30  Ct.  CI.  300.  .    1142 

V.  Currv,  6  How.  106,  12  U. 

S.   (L.  ed.)   363   .  .    241,     242 

V.  Denison,  80  Fed.  370.  49 
U.  S.  App.  352.  25  C. 
C.  A.  496   1136 

V.  59.650    Cigars,    138    Fed. 

166    468 

v.  Fleming.  80  Fed.  372.  49 
U.  S."  App.  354.  25  G. 
C.  A.  498   1136 

V.  Gardiner,  2  Hayw.  &  H. 
(D.  C.)  89.  25 "Fed.  Cas. 
No.   15,186a    334 

V.  Garter,  170  U.  S.  527,  18 
S.  Ct.  703.  42  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  1133,  affirming 
31  Ct.  CI.  344 1142 

V.  Goldstein.    132   Fed.   789. 

12  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  755     630 

V.  Green,    85    Fed.    857 

1196.  1200,  1202 

V.  Greenwald,  64  Fed.  6    .  .    1135 

v.  Hanewav.  2  Wall.  Jr.  (C. 
C.)  139,  26  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  15.299   1106 

V.  Haskell,  169  Fed.  449    .  .    1117 

V.  Heinze.  177  Fed.  770.  ..  .    1117 

v.  Herron,  170  U.  S.  527,  18 
S.  Ct.  703,  42  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  1132   1142 

V.  Hopewell.  51  Fed.  798.  5 

.       U.  S.  App.  137.  2  C.  C. 

A.    510     1136 

V.  Ingersoll,  Crabbe  135.  26 

Fed.  Cas.  No.   15,440..    1120 

V.  Lee,  107  Fed.  702  .  .   161. 

165.   213.   218,     219 

V.  Mitchell.  136  Fed.  896   .  .    1094 

V.  .Morin.  4  Biss.  93,  26  Fed. 

Cas.  No.  15,810  ..1113,  1115 


cclx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

U.  S.  V.  Mullan.  10  Fed.  78.5.  .  .    1137 

V.  Parks.  93   Fed.  414    

1269.  1273.  1275,  1289.  1299 
V.  Porter,  2  Cranch  (C.  C.) 

60,  27  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
16.072  1266 

V.  Rosentlial,   121   Fed.   862  1142 
V.  San  Jacinto  Tin  Co.,  125 

U.  S.  273,  8  S.  Ct.  850, 

31   U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    747 

1136.  1137 
V.  Scroggins,  3  Woods.  529, 

27  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16.244  1115 
V.  Six    Lots    of    Ground,    1 

Woods     234,     27     Fed. 

Cas.  No.  10.299   .  .   203,  1136 
V.  Stanlev,    6    McLean    409, 

27  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16.376     628 
V.  Throckmorton,   98    U.   S. 

61,  25   U.   S.    (L.   ed.) 

93   440 

V.  TAvining,   132  Fed.  129.. 

1097,  1112 
V.  U.    S.    Fidelity    &    Guar- 
anty  Co.,    83    Vt.    278, 

75  Atl.  280 480 

V.  Waters,  133  U.  S.  208, 
10  S.  Ct.  249,  33  U.  S. 

(L.  ed.)    594    1136 

V.  Winston,  170  U.  S.  522, 
18  S.  Ct.  701,  42  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    1130   .  .    1137,  1142 

U.  S.  Bank  v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  32, 

9  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    .  .980     561 

U.  S.  Bank  v.  Boherts.  4  Conn. 
323,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
934    414,     421 

U.  S.  Electric  Power,  etc..  Co.  v. 
State,  79  Md.  63,  28 
Atl.   708    85« 

U.  S.  Mort^aw  Co.  v.  Hender- 
son, in  Ind.  24,  12  N. 
E.  88   768,  780.     948 

U.  S.  Oil.  etc..  Co.  V.  Bell.  153 
Cal.  781,  90  Pac.  901.. 


are  to  pages.] 

Utica  Bank  v.  IMersereau,  J 
Barb.    Ch.    528,   49    Am.    Dec. 

1H9    155,    160,    108,    185, 

180,  197,  201,  202,  213,  214, 
215,  220,  221, 

Uzee  V.   Biron,   0   La.   Ann.   505 


272, 

273 

ITpliam    V.   Bradley,    17    Me.  423 

414 

[■|)sha\v    V.    liootli,    37    Tex.    125 

1(190 

Upton  y.  i'.rnwn,  20  Cli.  1).  731. 

47    1..  T.   X.   S.  2S9,   30 

W.  I!.  S17    

537 

V.  San   .\ng(d(>,  42  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  76,  94  S.   \V.  430 

1115 

Uslier  V.  Sands.  .32   Ind.  302    .  .  . 

27  S 

I'sry  V.  L'sry,  01  Vau.  57!t 

1026, 

1027 

222 

784 


—   V.  Re,  10  App.  Div.  491, 

42  N.  Y.  S.  268  ..  1215,  1137, 

1238,  1241,  1297,  1316,  1322' 
V.  &  M.  Lumber  Co.,  Re,  182 

Fed.  231  823 

Vail  y.  Conant,  15  Vt.  314 

385,     408 
y.  Lane,  4  Hun  (N.  Y.)  053     472; 
Vaillant    v.    Dodemead,    2    Atk. 

(  Eng. )   524 225. 

Valentine    y.    Stewart,    15    CaL 

387    273,   281.  282,   304, 

307,  315,     318. 
Valle  y.   Picton,  91   Mo.  207,   3 

S.    W.    860,    affirming    10    Mo. 

App.  178 417.  427,  428.     430 

Vallentine   y.   Holland,   40   Ark. 

338   501 

Valley  Nat.  Bank  y.  Garretson, 

104  la.  655,  74  N.  W.   11    ..      128 
Van     Alstyne     y.     Dearborn,     2 

Wend.  (N.  Y.)  580 

10.     117 
V.   Smith,    82    Hun    382,    31 

N.  Y.  S.  277    ISO' 

Vanasse  v.  Reid,   111   Wis.  303, 

87  N.  W.  192  .  .  274,  277,  284,     285 
Van  Atta  y.  McKinney,  10  N.  J. 

L.  235 ". 704,     705. 

Van    Beil    v.    Shire,     17    Phila. 

(Pa.)    104,  41  Leg.  Int.  154..      453 
Van  Campen  v.  Bruns,  54  App. 

Diy.  80,  00  N.  Y.  S.  344.  .245,     376 
\  an  Der  Beck   y.  Thomason,  50 

Misc.  524,  99  N.   Y.  S.  538..    1043 
\'anderliiH'    y.     Smith,     18    Mo. 

A])fi.  55    391,  3!)3,     390 

\'an    Dewater  v.  Gear,   21    App. 

Div.   201,   47   N.   Y.   S.   503. . 

081,     08'A 
\aii(liv(>r    y.    Waller.    143    Ala. 

4  11,  3!)   So.    130    858 

X'andu/.cr    v.    McMillan,    37    Ga. 

29!»    830 

Van  Etten  v.  State,  24  Neb.  734. 

40   N.   W.   289,    1   L.R.A.   009   1037 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cclxi 


[References 

Van  Every  v.  Adams,  42  Siiper. 

Ct.    (N.  Y.)    126    781,     904 

Van  Gordon  v.  Goldamer,  1(5  N. 

D.  323.  113  N.  W.  fiOO    .  .375, 

37!).  431 
Van  Hook  v.  Walton,  28  'lex.  5!)  207 
Van    Ingen    v.    Herold,    G4    Thin 

037   mem.,   19  N.  Y.  S.  450 .  .      400 
Van     Kannell     Revolving    Door 

Co.  V.  Astor,  55  Misc.  378,  105 

N.    Y.    S.    683    410 

Van  Kirk  v.  Sedgwick,  87  N.  Y. 

205,   reversing  23  Hun   37    .  .      545 
Van  Loben  Sels  v.  Bunnell,  131 

Cal.  489,   03   Pac.  773    311 

Van  Meter  v.  Bass,  40  Colo.  78, 

90  Pac.  637,  18  L.R.A.(N.8.) 

49 633,     049 

Vann  v.  McCreary,  77  Cal.  434, 

19  Pac.  826    639 

Van     Rensselaer     v.     Onandaga 

County    Sheriff,    1    Cow.     (N. 

Y.)    443    681,  082,     683 

Van  Riswick  v.   Lanion,  2  ]Mac- 

Arthur    (D.  C.)    172    986 

Vansandau    v.    Browne,   9    Bing. 

402,  23  E.  C.  L.  315,  2  Moo. 

&  S.  543,  2  L.  J.  C.  PI.  34 

243,  244 
Van  Saun  v.  Farley,  4  Daly  (N. 

Y.)    165 \ *. 270 

Van    Tassel    v.   Van    Tassel.    31 

Barb.    ( N.    Y. )    439    020 

Van     Vacter     v.      Brewster,     1 

Sraedes  &  M.   (Miss.)   400 

571,  003 
Van    Valkenburgh    v.    Doolittle, 

4  Abb.  N.  Cas.   (N.  Y.)   72   ..      851 
Van    Vleck    v.    Van    Vlcck,    21 

App.   Div.   272,   47    N.   Y.   S. 

470 758,     759 

Van  Wart  v.  Wolley,   R.  &  M. 

4,  21  E.  C.  L.  366 347 

Vardon  v.  Vardon,  6  Ont.  719.  .      401 
Varian  v.  Ogilvie,  3  Johns.   (X. 

Y.)     450 113 

Varnum  v.   Bellamy.  4   McLean 
87.    28    Fed.    Cas.    No. 

16,880   307,     409 

v.  Martin,  15  Pick.  (Mass.) 

440    553,  565,     570 

Vary  v.  Godfrey,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 

587    131,     132 

Vastine    v.    Voullaire,    45    Mo. 

504   1124 

Vaughan  v.  Hewitt,  17  S.  C.  442     502 


are  to  pages.] 

Vaughan  v.  Fisher,  32  Mo.  App. 

29    503.  505,     532 

v.  Tealey   (Tenn.)   63  S.  W. 

230 911,     954 

V.  Vaughan,        12        Ileisk. 

(Tenn.)    472    997.  1028 

Vaussc  V.  Lee,  1   11  ill  L.   (S.  C.) 

197,   20   Am.   Dec.   168    ..119,     121 
Veeder,    Re,    10    N.   M.    069,    65 

Pac.    180    1289,   1293 

Re,    11    N.    M.   43,    60    Pac. 

545    1222 

Veitch   V.   Russell,  3  Q.   B.   928, 

43  E.   C.  L.   1041    691 

Verdelli  v.  Gray's  Harbor  Com- 
mercial  Co.,   115  Cal.  517,  47 

Pac.    364,    778    154,     101 

Vermont  L.  &  T.   Co.   v.  Greer, 

19  Wash.  611,  53  Pac.  1103  .  .      776 
Vermont  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wind- 
ham County  Bank,  44  Vt.  489     208 
Verner  v.  Sul'livan,  20  S.  C.  327, 

2  S.   E.   391    912 

Vernon     v.     Morton,     8     Dana 

(Ky.)  247 354 

Vernon    County    Bar    Assoc,    v. 
McKibbin,  153   Wis.  350,   141 

N.  W.  283 15,  33,  34,  80. 

1169,   1176,   1249,   1281.   1282, 

1280,    1287,  1331 
Verplanck     v.     Mercantile     Ins. 

Co.,  1  Edw.    (N.  Y.)    40   800 

Vickery  v.  McClellan,  01  111.  311 

395,  397,  401,  407 
Vicksburg  Waterworks  Co.  v. 
Vicksburg.  99  Miss.  132,  54 
So.  852,  33  L.R.A.(N.S.)  844  857 
Victor  v.  Spalding,  199  :Mass. 
52,  84  N.  E.  1010,  127  Am.  St. 
Rep.   472,   202   Mass.   234,   88 

N.   E.   946    208,     269 

Victory,  The,  1  Blatchf.  443,  28 

Fed.*  Cas.  No.  16,937    ..    1041.   1075 
Victor   v.    Spalding,    199    j\Iass. 
52.  84  X.  E.  1016,  27  Am.  St. 

Rep.  472    ,343 

Vilas  v.  Downer,  21  Vt.  419.  . 

702,  703,  782,  783,  786, 

922,  924,     931 

V.  Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.. 

123  N.  Y.  440,  25  N.  E. 

941,    20    Am.    St.    Rep. 

771,  9  L.R.A.  844.. 440,     445 

Villas  V.   Bundv,   106   Wis.   168, 

81  N.  W.  812'..  374,  402,  710, 

724,  782,     897 
Villere,   Re,  33  La.  Ann.   998..        71 


cclxii 


TABI>E    OF    CASES, 


[Refen 

Villbauscr  v.  Toledo.  ^^  Oliio 
Dec.   8,   32  Cine.   L.   Bui.    l.-)4 

24.5,  802,     803 
Viniont  v.  Cliicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
(59  la.  ;>nO,  22  N.  W.  900,  28 

X.   W.  612    685 

Vinas    v.    ^Merchants    ]\Iut.    Ins. 

Co.,  33  La.  Ann.  1205    533 

Vincent    v.    Ashlev,    5    Humph. 

(Tenn.)    503    685 

V.  Bodundo,  2  Keb.    (Eng.) 

109   414 

V.  Vanderbilt,  10  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)  324,  1  Abb.  Pr. 

193    423,  424,     540 

Vinson  v.   Cantrell    (Tenn.)    56 

S.  W.  1034   ..    782,  784,  831,  1062 
Virgin,    Succession    of,    18    La. 

Ann.    42 789 

Virginia-Carolina  Chemical  Co., 
V.       Knight,     106     Va. 
674,    56    S.    E.    725    ..      341 
V.  Virven,    130   X\    C.    161, 

41   X.   E.   1    348 

Vise  V.  Hamilton  County,  19  IlL 

78     .' 713 

Vocke  V.  Peters,  58  111.  App.  338 

758,  1254 
Voell  V.  Kelly,  64  Wis.  504,  25 

X.  W.  536    995,  1045 

Vogel  V.  Pekoe,  157  111.  339,  42 

X.  E.  386,  30  L.R.A.  491 853 

Vogemann  v.  American  Dock, 
etc.,  Co.,  131  App.  Div.  216, 
115  X.  Y.  S.  741.  afrirmed  ]08 

X.  Y.  586,  92  X.  E.  1105 

267,     475 
Voist  Brewery  Co.  v.  Donovan, 
103  Mich.  190,  61  X.  W.  343 

982,   1040,   1078 
Voisin  V.  Commercial  'Slut.   Ins. 
Co.,  07   Hun  365,  22  X.  Y.  S. 

348    348,     477 

Von  Wailliofl'en  v.  Nevvcnmbe,  10 

Hun    (X.   Y.)    236.. 548.    946,     965 
N'oorlices    v.    ^McCartney,    51    X. 

V.    3S7     " 542 

\'(i<»rliicH    V.     Hanison,    22     Ln. 

Aun.  H5   709,      899 

\'<)oth  V.  McFaclicM,  IHl  X.  V. 
28.  2  Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  X.  K. 
488,  reverHJng  91  Aj)p.  Div. 
30,   80    \.    \.   S.   431    ..    516, 

580,   589.   592,      .594 
V<ir<r.   V.    Cage,  28   Xeb.   294,   44 

N.    \V.    452     417 


are  to  pages.] 

Vorse  V.  Phillips.   37    la.   428.. 

858,      850 
Vosburgh  v.  Lav,  45  Midi.  455, 

8  X.  W.  91  ; 773 

Vose  y.  Treat,  58  Me.  378  

375   378 
Voss,  Re,  11  X.  D.  540,  90  x! 

W.  15 1114,  1128, 

1190,  1257 
V.  Bachop,.  5  Kan.  59  .... 
574,  589,  598,  602,  604, 

605,  606 
Voxman,  Re,  148  App.  Div.  286, 

132  X.  Y.  S.  217  1209, 

1212,    1220,  1230 
Vrooman  v.  Pickering,  25  Misc. 
277,  28  Civ.  Proc.  302,  54  X. 
Y.   S.   389    996,  1048 


W 


Wabash,  etc.,  R.  Co.  y.  Mc- 
Douffall.  126  111.  Ill,  18  X. 
E.  291,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  539,  1 

L.R.A.  207    480 

Wachter  y.  Doerr,  210  111.  242. 

71  X.  E.  401   848 

Wade  y.  Flanary   (Te.x.)    108  S. 
W.    500,    reversed    102 
Tex.  63.  113  S.  W.  8.  .    1026 
V.  Keefe,   22   L.   R.   Ir.   154     536 
V.  Orton,  12  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S. 

444     1040 

V.  Pettibone.  14  Ohio  557 
anirniing  11  Ohio  57, 
37  Am.  Dec.  408  .  .  298, 

303,     307 

V.  Powell,  31  Ga.  1    489 

V.  Ridley,    87    :\Ie.    368,    32 

Atl.'  975 159,  102, 

188,  193,  190,     212 
y.  Stanley,     1     Jac.    &    W. 

(Eng.)    054    538 

Waddle   v.   Dayton,   8   X.   J.   L. 

174   470 

Wadliams    v.    Gay,    73    111.    415 

383,     492 
W'adsworth  v.  First  Xat.  Bank, 
124    Ala.    440,    27    So. 

400    479 

y.   Lornnger.  llarr.    (Mich.) 

113   170 

y.  ^larshall,  2  Cromi).  &  J. 

(;(>5   243 

Waflie  y.  \'andciii('\(l('n.  8  Paige 

(X.  Y.)   45 ■ 470 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cclxiiL 


[References 

Wagener   v.    8\vvjiert,    30    8.    C. 

296,  9  S.  E.  in?    421 

Wagner  v.  Goldscliniidt.  51  Ore. 
63,  93  Pac.  689   .  .   4.")7. 

756,   995,   999,  1041 
V.  Phillips,  7S  N.  J.  Eq.  33, 

78  Atl.  806   74G 

Waikulani  v.  Carter,  12  Hawaii 

S3   536 

Wailes   v.    Brown,    27    ]>a.    Ann. 

411    888,     904 

Wait,   Appeal  of.   20  W.   N.   C. 

19,     (Pa.)    9    Atl.    943     918 
V.  Atchison,   T.  &  S.   F.  R. 
Co.,   204   Mo.   491,    103 

S.  W.  60 808.  980, 

1011,  1042,  1047,  1074,  1081 
Wakeman  v.  Hazelton.  3  Barb. 

Ch.    (N.   Y.)    148    548 

V.  Jones,  1  Ind.  517   ..   376, 

383,     399 
Walbrid2:e  v.  Barrett,  118  Mich. 
433,  76  N.  W'.  973,  5  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  562   . .   770.  881,  886, 

942,  944,     958 
Walden   v.   Bolton,   55   Mo.   405 

346,   384,   391,     393 
V.  Grant,    8    INIart.    N.    S. 

(La.)    565     497 

Waldheimer,    Re,    84   App.    Div. 
366.   17    N.  Y.   Crim.   381,   82 

N.  Y.  S.  916    817 

Waldo    V.    Beckwith,    1    N.    M. 

182 208 

Waldron  v.  Angleman,  71  N.  J. 

L.   166,  58  Atl.  568    459 

Walford  v.  Fleetwood,   14  M.  & 

W.    (Eng.)    449    114 

Walls   V.   Loubat,   2   Denio    (N. 

Y.)   607   654 

Walker,     Re,     2     Ch.     Cliamb. 

(Ont.)     324    613 

V.  American  Xat.  Baid<,  49 

N.  Y.  659   787 

V.  Ayres,  1  la.  449    267 

V.  Com.,  8   Biish    (Ky.)    86 

1267,  1268,  1286,'  1295,  1304 
V.    Cutlibert,    10    Ala.    213 

668,  673,     943 
V.  Equitable      Mortg.      Co., 
114   Ga.   862,   40   S.   E. 

1010    1046,  1074 

V.  Flovd.    30   Ga.   237    843 

V.  Forbes,    31    Ala.    9    336 

V.  Goodman,    21    Ala.    647 

548,  564,  568,  582,  583,     584 


are  to  pages.] 

Walker  v.  (Joodricli,  16  111.  341 

325,   832,  958,     950 
V.  (;ravson.  86  Va.  337,  10 

S.   E.  51    497 

V.  Holmes,    22    Wend.     (X. 

Y.)     614    126 

V.  O'Xeil  Mfg.  Co.,  128  Ga. 

831,  58  S.  E.  475    955 

V.  ]\ogan.   1   Wis.  597    ....      422 
V.  Sargeant,   14  Vt.  247    .  . 

984,  988 
V.  Schreiber,  47  la.  529    .  . 

267,  268 
V.  Scott,  13  Ark.  644  ..391,  394 
V.  State,  19   Tex.   App.    176 

155.    176.     20a 
V.  State,  4  W.  Va.  749.. 31 

1310.   132S 

V.  Stevens,  79  111.  193 

521.  548,     552 
V.  Tink,  159  111.  323,  42  X. 

E.  773   847 

V.  Tribune  Co.,  29  Fed.  827     140 
V.  Walker,  20  Hun   (X.  Y.) 

400   468 

V.  Williams,    84   Miss.    392, 

36  So.  450 847,     848 

Walkey,    Re,    26    Colo.    161,    56 
Pac' 576    ..    1168,  1181,  1296, 

1301,  1307 
Wall  V.  Hardwood  Mfg.  Co.,  127 

La.  959,  54  So.  300    858 

Wallace  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
112  Iowa  565,  84  X.  W. 

662    664,  671,   1047 

V.  Furber,  62  Ind.  103   ....      313 
V.  Jameson,  179  Pa.  St.  98, 

36  Atl.  142 136 

V.  Peck,    12    Ala.    768    575 

V.  Scoles,  6  Ohio  428  .  .128,     129 
V.  Town,    8    Wash.   244,    35 

Pac.   1080    275.     281 

V.  Wallace,  137  N.  Y.  S.  43 

173,     222 
V.  Wilmington  &  X\  R.  Co., 
8    Houst.     (Del.)     529, 

18  Atl.  818 330 

Waller  v.  Holmes,  6  Jur.  X".  S. 

1367    709 

^^■allis    V.    Loubat.    2    Den.     (X. 
Y.)  607  ..  10,  723.  741, 

770,  862 
V.  Xew  Orleans,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

26    La.    Ann.    66     533 


cclxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Wall,  Ex  p.,  107  U.  S.  205,  2  S. 
Ct.  569.  27  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  552,  27  Alh.  L.  J. 
400,  5  Kv.  L.  Hep.  2, 
affirming  04  Ind.  401.  .  1274 
Ex  p.,  107  tr.  S.  265,  2  S. 
Ct.  569,  27  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  552,  27  Alb.  L.  .J. 
406.  5  Kv.  L.  Rep.  2, 
affirming' 13  Fed.  814, 
•  27  Alb.  L.  J.  91  .  .  14, 
32.  1106.  1172,  1173, 
1176.  1179,  1187,  1260, 
1261.  1263.  1265.  1266, 
1272,  1277,  1280.  1281, 
1282,  1286,  1294,  1296, 

1302,    1303,    1305,  1330 

Walls.  Ex  p..  64  Ind.  461   

1187,  1239,  1265,  1273, 

1300,  1309 

Ex  p..   73  Ind.  95    90, 

1333.  1335,  1337.  1339 
Walls  V.  Palmer,  64  Ind.  493  .  . 

1324,  1328,  1330 
Walmesley    v.     Booth,    2     Atk. 

(Eng.)    29    289, 

Wain  V.  Beaver,  161  Pa.  St.  605, 

29   Atl.    114,   493    

V.  Massev,     7     W.     N.     C. 

(Pa.')   312   

Walpole  V.  Bisliop,  31   Ind.   150 

001. 

V.  Carlisle,     32     Ind.     415 

551,  563, 

Walradt    v.    Mavnard,    3    Barb. 

(X.  Y.)    584    "..250.  454,  599, 

Walrod  v.  Manson.  23  Wis.  393, 

99  Am.  Dec.  187 484, 

Walsh    V.    Helena    School    Dist.. 
17    Mont.  413,  43   Pac. 

180      

V.  Knickerbocker,     18     La. 

Ann.  ISO 1093 

V.  Mueller.  14  Mont.  76.  35 

I'ac.   226    

V.  Mnrpbv,     2     G 

(Iowa  I    227    . 

V.      Sackrider.       7 

(N.   V.)    537    in, 

V.  Slmniway,     05     Ilk     47  1 


748 

570 

775 

608 

565 

001' 

493 

.766 


are  to  pages.] 

Waiters  V.  Svkes,  22  Wend.   (N. 

Y.)  %")60    503. 

Walton  V.  Bethune,  37  Ga.  319 

V.  Dickerson,      7      Pa.      St. 

370     ..695,     701,     945, 

951, 

V.  Faircliild.    4    N.    Y.    S. 

552     197, 

V.  Little,   50   Ga.   599    

V.  Sugg,    61    N.    C.    98,    93 

Am.  Dec.  580    259, 

Wahvorth   v.    Henderson.    9    La. 

Ann.  339  .  .416,  446,  447,  518, 

Wambaugli    v.    Gates,    8    N.   Y. 

138     290, 

Waples  V.  Layton,  24  La.  Ann. 

624    

Ward  v.   Alsup,   100  Tenn.  019, 

46  S.  W.  573    

V.  Barber,    1    E.    D.    Smith 

(N.  Y.)    423    

V.  Beals,    14    Neb.    114,    15 

N.  W.  353    

V.  Beecher,  56  Mich.  610.  23 

N.  W.   438    

V.  Brown,       87       Mo.       408 

290.  302. 

550 

990. 


(Jrcciie 


.John. 


409 


332 


1  I 


7!)'). 

Walter  v.    Dickson.    175    l';i.   St. 
204.     34      Atk     010 
V.    Sample    25    I'n.    St.    275 

Walters  v.  .Mit.'bcli.  0  (';i!.  .\pp. 
410,   92    Pac.    315    


V.  Craig,     87     N.     Y. 
V.  Hollins,      14      Md. 


158 
507, 
433, 


V.  Koenig.     100     Md 

07  Atl.  236 

V.  Kohn.    58    Fed.    402,    19 

U.    S.    App.    280.    7    C. 

C.  A.  314 789.  791, 

V.  Lee,    13   Wend.    (N.   Y.) 

41     903, 

V.  Price,   25    N.   J.   L.   225, 

230      ..417,     443.     440, 

492, 

V.  Roy,  69  N.  Y.  96   .  .  252, 

439. 

V.  Sands,    10    Abb.    N.   Cas. 

(N.   Y.)    00    251. 

V.  Seabring,    4    Wash.    472, 

29        Fed.       Cas.       No. 

17,100     

V.  Seabrv,  4  Wash.  420.  29 

Fed!  Cas.  No.  17.101 
91(;       v.  Slierbondv,  90  la.  477. 

()5  N.  'W.  413  .  .979. 

77.'.  1033. 

v.  Symc.  1  Code  Kcp.  \.  S. 

(;:;7        2()s  

V.  S\nic.  9  Kow.  Pr.  (N. 
357  v.)  10  


500 
530 


971 

423 

987 

260 
524 

297 
953 
149 
440 
304 
342 
307 
994 
511 
233 

929 
1053 

518 
505 
258 

409 
409 

1055 

800 

1030 


TABT.E    OF    CASES. 


cclx 


[Txoferences 

Ward  V.  Ward,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dee. 

656    131 

V.  Watson,     27     Neb.     768, 

44   N.   W.  27    1055 

V.  Webster,  9  Daly   (N.  Y.) 

182    528 

V.  Wilson,  17  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
28,  43  S.  W.  833,  af- 
firmed   92   Tex.    22,    45 

S.  W.  8    479 

Y.W(  rdsworth,      1       E.      D. 

Smith    (N.  Y.)    598    ..      978 
V.  Yancev,  78  111.  App.  368 

741.     749 
Warde,   Re,    154   N.   Y.    342,   48 

N.    E.    513    57 

V.  Warde,  3  Macn.  &  G. 
365,  21  L.  J.  Cli.  90,  15 
Jur.     759     reversing     1 

Sim.  N.  S.  18   177,     183 

Wardell  v.  Eden,  2  Johns.  Cas. 

(N.   Y.)     121    470,     471 

Warder  v.  Seitz,  157  Mo.  140,  57 
S.    W.    537     ..877,    889,    960, 

962,     964 
Ware  v.  Russell,  70  Ala.  174,  45 

Am.  Rep.  82    ..G67,  684,  730,     741 
Warfield    v.    Campbell,    38    Ala. 
527,  82   Am.   Dec.   724    ..977, 

988,   989,   1029,  1054 
Waring   v.    Barret,   2    Cow.    (N. 

Y.)     460     540 

v.  Richardson.  33  N.  C.  77     605 
Warlick  v.  Reynolds  &  Co.,  151 

N.  C.  606,  66  S.  E.  657    465 

Warner  v.  Conant,  24  Vt.  351, 

58  Am.  Dec.   178    562 

V.  Grisvvold,    8    Wend.    (N. 

Y.)    665    322,    520,     875 

V.  Gunnison,    2    Colo.    App. 

430,  31  Pac.  238   ..487,     531 
V,  Hall,    53    Mich.    371,    19 

N.    W.    40    270 

V.  Heiden,    28    Wis.    517,    9 

Am.  Rep.  515    905 

V.  Hoffman,  4  Edw.   (N.Y\) 

381      719 

V.  Paine.    3    Barb.    Ch.    (N. 

Y. )     630     683 

Warner  Bank  v.  Clement,  58  N. 

H.    533    591 

W^arner    Elevator    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
Houston,     (Tex.)     28     S.    W. 

405      208 

Warnock    v.    Itawis,    38    Wasli. 
141,  80  Pac.   297    777 


lire  to  pages.] 

Warren  v.   Connollv,    165   Alicli. 

274.  130  X.  W.  637,  33 

L.R.A.(N.S.)      314,     18 

Detroit  Leg.  N.  138  ..  1302 

V.  Flood.  72  Mo.  App.  199  64G 

V.  Hawkins,  49  Mo.  137 

296,  298 

V.  Lusk,  16  Mo.  102 446 

V.  Rav.  155  Mich.  91,  16 
Ann.  Cas.  513,  118  N. 
W.    741,  130  Am.  St. 

Rep.  566  850 

V.  Sheelian,   156   Mich.  432, 
120  N.  W.  810,   16   De- 
troit L.   N.   157    . .783,     871 
V.  Sprague,  4  Edw.   (N.  Y.) 

416    313 

V.  Warren,  33  R.  I.  71,  80 

Atl.    593    195 

Warren    Deposit    Bank    v.    Bar- 
clay, 60  S.  W.  853,  22  Ky.  L. 

Rep.    1555    793,   797,"  958,     904 

Wartman.   Re,    (N.  J.)    31    Atl. 

1040     12 10.   1230 

Warwick   v.   ^Marlatt,    25    N.    J. 

Eq.   188    484 

Warwick    Iron    Co.    v.    Morton, 
148  Pa.  St.  72,  23  Atl.  1065. 

773,     775 
Washborn    v.    Coke,    144    N.    Y. 

287   39  N.  E.  388    444 

Wasliburn  v.  Mott,  19  Civ.  Proc. 

439,   12  N.  Y.  S.   Ill    ..1075,  1077 
Washington,    Re,    82    Kan.    829, 
109     Pac.     700     ..951, 

1226,  1241,   1322 
V.  Johnson,        7        Humph. 

(Tenn.)     468    298 

Washington    County    v.    Clapp, 
83  Minn.  512,  86  N.  W. 

775     838,     994 

V.  Murray,     45     Colo.     115, 

100    Pac.   588    715.     815 

Washoe    County    v.     Humboldt 
County,    14    Nev.    123    ..713, 

716,   814,     816 
Wassell    V.    Reardon,     11     Ark. 

705,   44  Am.   Dec.   245    ..248,     313 
Waterbury  v.  Eldridge,  1  Silver- 
riail   292,    52    Hun    614 
mem.,   5   N.   Y.    S.    324 

612,     619 
V.  Laredo,    68    Tex.    565,    5 

S.  W.  81   741,  747,     748 


cclxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

\Yaterhouse  v.  Freeman.  13  Wis.  Watt  v.  Corey,  7G  ^le.  87.  .  .032 

339              265                                ■                    642,  648, 

Waters  v.  Grace,  23  Ark.  118..  989               v.  Watt,    2    Barb.    Cli.    (X. 

V.  Greenwav,     17     Ga.     592  Y.)     371     

845,  1023       Watterston  v.  Webb,  4  La.  Ann. 

V.  Whittenniore,    22     Barb.  173     678, 

(N.  Y.)    593    16,  967       Watts,  Re,  190  U.  S.  1,  23  S.  Ct. 

Watters   v.   Wells.    7    Ga.    App.  718,  47  U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 

778,  68  S.  E.  450    1003                        933,     10     Am.     Bankr. 

Watertown   v.    Cowen,    5   Paige  Rep.  113   

(X.   Y.)    510    543               V.  Frenclie,  19  X.  J.  Eq.  407 


Wathen  v.  Russell,  47  S.  W.  437, 

20  Kv.  L.  Rep.  709    1023 

Watkin's    v.    Smith,    17    Ga.    68 

193,     330 
V.  Snyder,  148  Kv.  733.  147 

S.   W.   899    1092 

Watkinson.    Re,    130    Fed.    218, 

]2  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  370 822 

Watrous    v.    Kearney     11    Hun 

584     233,    444,     518 

V.  Kearney,  79  N.  Y.  496  430 
Watson,  Re,  S3  Neb.  211,  110  X. 

W.  451  214,  1240 

V.  Calvert  Bldg.,  etc., 
Assoc,  91  Md.  25,  45 
Atl.   879    548,    556 


3S4. 

V.  Gayle.  20  Ala.  817    

V.  Xewberrv,    107    Va.    233. 

57  S.  E.  657    1037, 

V.  West     Virginia     So.     K. 

Co.,  48  W.  Va.  262,  37 

S.   E.    700    ..702,    724, 

769,   780,   782, 

Waugh,    Re,    32    Wash.    58,    72 

Pac.  710    

V.  Shunk,  20  Pa.  St.  130  .  . 

Wawrzyniakowski     v.     Hoffman 

&  Billings  Mis.  Co..  I.j7  Wis. 

629,   119  X.  W.  350    

Wax,  Re,  100  Cal.  343,  39  Pac. 
624   


559,  587       Wayne  County  v.  Waller,  90  Pa. 

V.  Citizens'    Sav.    Bank,    5  St.  99,  35  Am.  Rep.  636  .  .145, 

S.  C.  159   ..1205. 1206,  713, 

1273,  1274       Weaklv  v.  Hall,  13  Ohio  167,  42 


V.  Columbia    Min.    Co.,    118 

Ga.   603,   45    S.    E.   460 

869,  870,     959 
v.  H;)rmon,  8  Greenl.  (.Mo.) 

286    453 

V.  McLaren,    19   Wond.    (X. 

Y.)     557     tiSl 

V.  Muirhead,     57      Pa.     St. 

161,    98    Am.    Dee.    213 

549,     552 
V.  Smith.  63  Lt.  228.  ]8  X. 

W.  916 1055 

V.  Sutro,    103    Cal.    169,    37 

Pac.  201     849 

V.  Walker.    23    N.     II.    476     337 
V.  Yuun-r,    30    S.    C.    144.    8 

S.    !•:.    706     180 

Walt.  lU:   1-19   K''d.  1(109   .  .1180.    1200 

Kc.    154    K.'d.   67H    1321 

V.   Brookovcr.     ;'>5     W.     \  a. 

323,   13   S.    i:.    1(107.   29 

Am.       St.       Kcp.       Sll 

397,      398 
V.  Chirk,     12    Out.    I'r.    359 

402,     494 


Am.  Dec.  194  ..653,  661,  672, 
Weathers  v.  Rav,  4  Dana   (Kv.) 

474 '. ;.. 

Weaver  v.   Cooper,   73   Ala.   318 
991,   1083, 

V.  Jones.  82  X.  C.  440 

Weaver's   Estate,  9   Pa.   Co.   Ct. 

516     184. 

Webb   V.  Armstrong,   5   llumi)n. 

(Tenn.)    381    

V.  Baird,   6   Ind.   13    ..143, 

145,  714, 

V.  Browning,     14     Mo.    354 

701, 

V.   Cleveland,    9    .Tolins.    ( X. 

V.)     2(i(i    10. 

V.  Dill.  18  Abb.  Pr.   (X.  Y.) 

264    

V.    i\liiiic.    10    Civ.    Pro.    ( X. 

\.)    27    

V.    Parker.      1;;m     Apj).     Div. 

92.    114    N.    V.    S.    489 

!t!)(;,    1032,    1056. 

V.  Tavlnr.      1      Dowl.     A;      L. 

(Lng.)    676,    8   ,Jur.   39 


649' 
373 
680 

630 

397 
561 

1038 

878 

1178. 
551 

251 

212- 

714 

729 

453 

1085 
431 

194 

.  685 

715 

781 

115 

457 

258 

1 085 
115" 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclx 


[Rcferi'iiccs 

Webb  V.  Troscoiiv,  7G   Cal.   iJ2!, 
IS  Vnc.  'I'Jii.  .  .7!)-2,  IWA 

704,     875 
V.  White,    18    Tex.    572     .  .      oGl 
Webber  v.  Barrv.  OG  Mich.  J27, 
33   N.  W.  289,    11  Am. 

St.  Rep.  4Gl)    320.     380 

V.  Clark,    ]3C    111.    25G,    2U 
N.    E.    360,    32    X.    E. 

748    267 

V.  Waiiiieniaker,     39     Colo. 

425,   8!)   Pae.   780    300 

Weber    v.    Credit    Office,    Misc. 

386,   106  N.   Y.  S.  583     139 
V.  Maiilieimer,  23  j\Iisc.  157, 

50  N.  Y.  S.  668... 574,     607 
V.  Werner,    138    App.    Div. 
127,   122  N.   Y.  S.  943 

603,   604,  1006 
Webster  v.  Dundee  Mortg.,  etc., 
Co.,  93  Ga.  278,  20  S. 

E.   310    492,     494 

V.  Fowler,  89  Mich.  303,  50 

N.  W.  1074 642 

V,  Loeb,  112  Mo.  App.  139, 

8G  S.  W.  463    886,     944 

V.  Rhodes,     49     Colo.     203, 

112   Pac.   324    805,     810 

V.  Skipwith,    26    :\Iiss.    341     5G2 
V.  Stadden,  14  Wis.  277   .  .      409 
Weddington   v.  White,   148   Ky. 
671,  147  S.  W.  17   ..640,  642, 

643,     645 
Weed,  Re,  2G  Mont   241,  G7  Pac. 

308   1293 

Re,  26  Mont.  507,  68  Pac. 
1115.. 1216,  1266,  1272, 

1275,  1299 
Re,  28  Mont.  264,  72  Pac. 

653  1333,  1334 

Re,  30  Mont.  456,  77  Pac. 

50  1333,  1337 

V.  Bond,  21  Ga.  195 911 

V.  U.  S.,  82  Fed.  414  1135 

Weedon   v.   Wallace.   Meigs 

(Tenn.)  286  654,  670.  685 

Weed  Sewing  IMacliine  Co.  v. 
Boutelle,  56  Vt.  570.  48  Am. 
Rep.  821  .  .11,  970,  971.  973, 
975,   986,   989,   994,   996,   998. 

inoi,  1052 
Weeks  v.  Gatell.  125  App.  Div. 
402.  109  N.  Y.  S.  977, 
affirmed  193  N.  Y.  (iSl, 
87  N.  E.  1129  ..679, 
683,      723,      737.      738, 

739,    746,     919 


are  to  pages.] 

Weeks  v.  Wavne  Circuit  Judges, 
73  Mich.  256,  41  X.  VV. 

269 734,  811.  981, 

1044,  1047,   1048,   1050,  1075 
Wehmhoff  v.  Rutherford,  98  Ky. 

9],  32  S.  W.  288    ..662,   685,     686 
Weiclier    v.    Cargill,    86    ^linn. 
271,    90    N.    W.    402     ..U)16, 

JOiU).  lOCi).   1082 
Weidekind  v.  Tuolumne  County 
Water    Co.,    74    Cal.    386,    19 
Pac.  173,  5  Am.  St.  Rep.  445 

307,    315,    317,    318,     319 
Weigand  v.  Alliance  Supply  Co.. 
44  W.  Va.  133,  28  S.  E.  803 

702,  841,  1022 
Weigel's  Succession,  18  La.  Ann. 

49   411 

Weigley  v.  Charlier,  9  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.  670    775 

Weil  V.  Finneran,  70  Ark.  509, 

69   S.  W.  310    792,     959 

V.  Fineran,   78   Ark.   87.   93 
S.   W.   568    ..432,   743, 
794,  869,  876,  877,  884,     962 
V.  Israel,  42  La.  Ann.  955, 

8    So.    826     533,     640 

V.  Reiss,    167    Mo.    125.    66 

S.   W.   946    270 

Weill  V.  Weill,  IS  Civ.  Pro.  241, 

10    N.    Y.    S.    627     852,   1034 

Weimer    v.    Sloano,    6    Mcl^ean 

259,  29   Fed.  Cas.  No.  17.363     548 
Weinstein  v.  Reid,  25  Mo.  App. 

41     -06.     214 

Weir  V.  Hervey,   1   U.  C.  Q.  B. 

430   538 

V.  Slocum,  3  How.  Pr.    (N. 
Y.)    397,    1    Code   Rep. 

105    28.     469 

Weisbrod    v.    Chicago,    etc.,    R. 

Co.,  20   Wis.  419    348 

Weiss  v.  Gullett,  18  Colo.  App. 

122,   70  Pac.  442    1025 

Weisse  v.  New  Orleans,   10  La. 

Ann.   46    462,     463 

Weist   v.   Lee,   3    Yeates    (Pa.) 

47    363,     500 

Welch,  Re,   156   App.   Div.   470, 

141  N.  Y.  S.  381.. 758,  1254 
V.  Mastin,  98  Mo.  App.  273, 

71   S.   W.    1090    .161 

V.  State,    (Tex.)    157  S.  W. 

946     628 

V.  Svkes,    3    Gilman     (Til.) 

"l97,  44  Am.  Dec.  689 . .     446 


cclxviii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Welch  V.  Welch,  106  Ky.  406,  50 

S.  W.  687   851 

Weldon    v.    Finley,    104    S.    W. 

701,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.   1050    .  .      889 
Wcldy    V.    Board    of    Com'rs,    8 
Ohio   Dec.    (Reprint)     707,    9 

Cine.  L.  Bui.  313    1125 

Welford     v.     Daniell,     9     Sim. 

(Eng.)    652    143 

Wellcome,  Re,  23  Mont.  140,  58 

Pac.  45    .  .    1260,   1272,  1283 
Re,  23   Mont.  213,   58  Pac. 

47   .  .    1266,  1275,  1278,  1293 
Re,  23   Mont.  259,   58   Pac. 

711 1282,  1311 

Re,  23  Mont.  450,  59  Pac. 

445    1297,  1308,  1312 

Re.  25   Mont.   131,  69   Pac. 

836     1338 

Wellenbrock  v.   Speckert,  55   S. 
W.  200,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1369 

574,  001 
Weller  v.  Jersey  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co..  68  N.  J.'  E.  Eq.  659,  6 
Ann.  Cas.  442,  61  Atl.  459, 
affirming  66  N.  J.  Eq.  11,  57 
Atl.  730  ..  736.  737,  755,  756, 

805,  981,  1014,  1040,  1081 
Wellman   v.   Sun   Printing,  etc., 
Co.,  66  Hun  331,  21  N.  Y.  S. 

577   142 

Wells,  Re,  96  Me.   165,  51  Atl. 

868   290 

V.  Adams,  7  Colo.  26,  1  Pac. 

698 932 

V.  Com.,    21     Gratt.     (Va.) 

500   630 

V.  Crugor,  5  Paige   (N.  Y.) 

164   10 

V.  Elsam,    40    Mich.    218.. 

981    1056 

V.  Evans,  2  Wend.    ( \.  Y.) 

251   408 

V.  Foss,  81  Vt.   15,  69   Atl. 

155   245 

V.  Ilatcli,  43  X.  IT.  246 

237,  239,  241,  254,  972, 

OSS,     990 
V.    Ilayncs.    101    Ca.   S41.  2S 
S.    !•:.   9(iS    .  .    701,  7S0. 

S7(i,  SSI,     9(14 
V.   McMahon,   3   Wasii.  Tcr. 

532,  18  I'ac.  73    268 

V.  Piul:<'r.  76  Ark.  11.  (I 
Ann.  Cas.  259,  SS  S.  \V. 
002   612 


are  to  pages.] 

Wells  V.   Pen  field,   70  Minn.   66, 

72   N.   \A'.   816    398 

Wells  Fargo  &  Co.  v.  ]\Ioore,  31 

Okla.   13.5,  120  Pac.  612    1040 

Wells,   Succession,   24   La.   Ann. 

162   985 

Wels  V.  Gilpin,  19  Colo.  305,  35 

Pac.  545    871 

Welsh  V.  Cochran,  63  N.  Y.  181, 

20  Am.   Rep.  219    

352,   506,     532 
V.  Hole,    1    Dougl.     (Eng.) 

238    976,     988 

V.  Koch,    4    Cal.    App.    571, 

88    Pac.    604    561 

V.  Old  Dominion  ^lin.,  etc., 
Co.,  56  Hun  650,  10  N. 

Y.  S.  174 767 

Welti   V.   Cohen,   157    App.   Div. 

65,  141  N.  Y.  S.  670   .  .    216,     890 
Wenans     v.     Lindsey,     1     How 

(Miss.)   577   ..   342,  345,  393,     477 
Wendel,    Re,    152    Fed.    672,    IS 

Am.   Bankr.   Rep.   065    823 

Wendell  v.  Binninger,  132  App. 
Div.  785,^117  N.  Y.  S. 
616   ...   738,  739,  1013,  1032 
V.  Lewis,   8   Paige    (N.   Y. ) 

613   943 

V.  VanRensselaer,   1   Johns. 

Ch.  (N.  Y.)  344 285 

Werner  v.  George  Zehler  Pro- 
vision Co.,  31  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct.  Rep.  632    1081 

V.  Knowlton,  107  App.  Div. 
158,  94  N.  Y.  S.  1054 

764.  919,  961 
Wornimont  v.  State,  101  Ark. 
210,  Ann.  Cas.  191 3D  1150, 
142  S.  W.  194  ..  1160,  1168. 
1171,  1172,  1189,  1190,  1207, 
1209,  1210,  1229,  1230,  1247, 

12S2,  1287.  1288.  1313,  1314 
Wesley  v.  Wood,  73  Misc.  33, 

132' N.  Y.  S.  248    1055 

West  v.  Bacon,  164  N.  Y.  425, 
58  N.  E.  522.  modify- 
ing  13    App.    Div.    371, 

43    X.    Y.    S.    21)0    1007 

V.  Ball.  12  Ala.  3  K)   .  .   .•{92,     571 
V.    iJrowstcr,     1      Diicr      (X. 

Y.)    647   601 

V.  Carleton,  S  i.a.  2."):!.  .015.     S39 
V.   Elev.     :!9     Ore.     -1(11.     (i5 

I'ac.  79S    SS2,     916 

V.    ]''r('ciiiaii,     09     Mo.     Aiip. 

082    175,     196 


TAF.I.E    or    CASKS. 


cclxix 


[Rofcrfiicea 

West  V.  Kurt7.  To  Dnlv  00,  15 
Civ.  Troe.  424.  '.]  X.  Y. 
S.  14,  2  N.  Y.  S.  110  .. 

()81.     GS2 
V.  Mossick  Grocery  Co.,  138 
N.  C.  166,  50"S.  E.  r)6r) 

340,     r).32 
V.  Raymond,  21  Ind.  30,)..      286 
Wpstbay  v.  Grav,  116  Cal.  665. 

48  Pac.  800  .* 460 

Wostbrook  v.  Blond.  50  Mich. 

443,  15  N.  W.  544  433,  438 

Westcott,  Re.  66  Conn.  585,  34 

Atl.  505   ..   1177,  1325,  1326 
V.  Ilincklev,    56    N.    J.    L. 

343,  20  Atl.  154    007 

West    Cliicajro    Park    Com'rs    v. 

Coleman,  108  111.  501    .  .    660,     728 
West  Cove  Grain  Co.  v.  Bartlev, 
105    Me.    293,    74    Atl.    730.". 

504,     505 
West      Devon      Great      ConsoLs. 
Mine,  Re,  38  Ch.  D.  51,  57  L. 
J.    Cli.    850.    58    L.    T.   N.    S. 

61.  36  W.  R.  342    402 

Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Bal- 
timore,   etc.,    Tel.    Co., 

26  Fed.  55    225 

V.  Semmes,    73    Md.    0,    20 

Atl.  127   .  .    703.  795,     805 
West  Felciciaiia  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 5  How.   (Miss.)  273   .... 

28,  111,     112 
Westheimer  v.   State   Loan    Co., 
105  Mass.  510,  81  N.  E. 

280  477 

Westmorland  v.  Martin.  24  S.  C. 

238    840.  880,     904 

West  of  Ent^land  Bank  v.  Batch- 

elor,  51  L.  J.  Ch.    (En^-.)    100  1087 
Weston    V.    Com.,    Ill    Pa.    St. 

251,  2  Atl.  101    627 

V.  John  L.  Ropor  Lumber 
Co.,  158  N.'C.  270.  Ann. 
Cas.   1913D   373,   73    S. 

E.  700   020.     030 

Wetherbee  v.  Ezekiel.  25  Vt.  47     166 
V.  Fitch,  117  111.  07,  7  N.  E. 

513    376,  378,     383 

V.  Weaver.  51   Minn.  73.  52 

N.   W.   070    1052,  1083 

Wetmore  v.   Daflin,   5   La.   Ann. 

406 355 

V.  He.treman,  88  N.  Y.  60, 
affirmimj  12  N.  Y. 
Wkly.  Dig.  403..      683,     729 


are  to  pages.] 

Weverl'aiiser  v.  Dun,  100  X.  Y. 

150.  2  N.  E.  274    503 

Wbalev      v.     Kirklam,      1      Ld. 

Ravin.    (Enc)    27    115 

WbaUen    v.    Ilallam,    76    S.    W. 

860.  25  Kv.  L.  Rep.  065.  .021,     004 
Whallev   v.  Tongue,  29  Ore.  48. 

43  Pac.  717 1241 

Whartenby  v.  Reay,  92  Cal.  74, 

28   Pac."  50    * 245 

Wharton,   Re.   114   Cal.  367,   46 
Pac.    172,    55    Am.    St. 

Rep.  72 1273,  1326 

Re,    130   Cal.   486,   62   Pac. 

741   1314 

V.  Cain,  50  Ala.  408 88G 

V.  Hammond,    20    Fla.    034 

285,     741 
Wheatcroft.  Re.  6  Ch.  D.  (Eng.) 
07,    20    W.    R.    60,    46    L.    J. 

Ch.  060    515 

Wheatley     v.     State,     11     Lea 

■  (Tenn.)  202 13,     108. 

V.Williams,     1     M.    &     W. 

(Eng.)  533,  541   ..  169,     200. 
Wheaton      v.      Ncwcombe.      48 
Super.  Ct.   (N.  Y.)   215 

515.  800,     089' 
V.  Whittcmore,      40      Mich. 

348,  13  N.  W.  700 530- 

Whclan    v.    ^Manhattan    R.    Co., 

SO  Fed.  219  ..  143,  713,     717 

V.  Reillv,  61   Mo.  505    

364.  366,     396 
Wheeler  v.  Alderman.  34  S.   C. 
540,    13    S.    E.    673,   27 
Am.  St.  Rep.  842.  .500,     502 
V.  Bulla rd,    6   Port.    (Ala.) 

352   517 

V.  Com..   08   Ky.   59,   32   S. 

W.  250  ..  .' 1153 

V.  Cox.  56  Iowa  36,  8  N.  W. 

OSS 416 

V.  Fuller.  4   Ala.  App.  532, 

58  So.   702    851 

V.  Harrison.     04    Md.     147, 

50  Atl.  523 2.32, 

067,   728,     91^ 

V.  Hill,   10  Me.  320    165. 

V.  Kino-.    35    Hun     (N.    Y.) 

101   985 

V.  Lvnde,   1   Allen    (Mass.) 

402   541 

V.  Riviere   (Tex.)    49  S.  W. 

007   003,     729' 

V.  Willard,  44  Vt.  040 

280,  294,  297,  302,     303.' 


ocixx 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

\^1ieelock    v.    Tuttle,    10    Cush. 

(Mass.)   123 r)30 

Whinerv  v.  Bro\vn.  30  Ind.  Adj). 
276,  75  X.  E.  005   .  .   597,  508, 

001,  0G5,  000.  72S.  730     704 
Whipple    V.    Barton,    03    N.    IT. 

613,    3    Atl.    922     

273.   283,     288 
V.  Wliitman,   13   E.  I.  512, 

43  Am.  Rep.  42   

385.    401.    404,     405 
Whitcomb  v.  Collier,  133  la.  303, 

110  X.  W.  830   ..    308,     310 
V.  Kepliart,  50  Pa.  St.  85.  .      453 

V.  Straw,  02  X.  H.  050 988 

White  V.  Bird.  20  La.  Ann.  188, 

90   Am.   Dec.   393    529 

V.  Carr,  71  Me.  555,  30  Am. 

Rep.  353 635.  643,     648 

V.  Cole  (Kv.)   47  S.  W.  759     290 
V.  Com..    120    Kv.    178,    85 
S.   W.   753,  "27   Kv.   L. 

Rep.  501    ." 1123 

V.  Cumminps,  3  Sandf.   (X. 

Y.)    716    474 

V.  Davidson,  8  :\R1.  169,  03 

Am.  Dec.  099 357, 

401,     489 
V.  Esch,   78   Minn.   204.    80 
X.  W.  970   .  .   709,  887, 

889,  890.  899,  900,     904 
V.  Furffcson,   29    Ind.   App. 

144.  64  X.  E.   49    19 

V.  Haffaker.  27  III.  349    ..      310 
V.  Harlow,  5  Grav   (Mas.s.) 

403 ' 1005 

V.  Haslett.   49  Ga.  280    ...      114 
V.  Tlildreth,    13    X.    H.    104 

359,     300 
v.  Ilillaere,  3  Y.  &  C.  Exch. 

278,  8  L.  J.  Exch.  65..      537 
V.  Ilixon,    1.32    Ga.   507,    04 

S.  E.  048    96,     103 

V.  International    Text-Book 

Co..    144    Iowa  92,    121 

X.  W.  1104  ..  038,  641,     043 

V.  Jolinson,  07  Me.  287    .  .  . 

237,  241,  250,  251,  205, 

302,  304.  450,  503,     500 

V.  Lucas,  46  la.  319  777 

V.  i.-K-ps.  55  Wis.  222,  12  X. 

\V.  370  S!)n,  K91 

V.  .Mcni;iiii.  10  Xcl).  9(i,  1!) 

X.   W.   70.-!    .  .    4M.    i:;i      5S5 
▼,  XirliolH,   3    How.   2H5.    11 

U.   S.    (L.  cd.)    GOO    ..      133 


are  to  pages.] 

White  V.  Polhamus,  1  X.  Y.  Citv 

Ct.  421    '.      P.29 

V.  Polk  Conntv,  17   la.  413  1099 
V.  State,   80  Ala.  09,  5   So. 

074    101,  209,     216 

V.  State    (Olda.)     133    Pac. 

203   1098 

V.  Sumner,     10     App.     Div. 
70,  44  X.  Y.  S.  692    .  . 

993,  1043 
V.  Thacl-er,  78  Fed.  862,  41 
U.  S.  App.  745,  24  C.  C. 

A.  374   225 

V.  Tolliver,    110    Ala.    300, 

20  So.  97    .  .    747,  748,     872 
V.  U.   S.   Bank,   0   Ohio  529     562 
V.  Ward,   157   Ala.    345,   47 
So.      166,      18      L.R.A. 

(X.S.)    568    361,     619 

V.  Whalev,  40  How.  Pr.  (X. 
Y.)   353,  3  Lans.  .327   .. 

274.  287.  743,     744 
V.  Wliite,    80    Cal.    212,    24 

Pac.  1030   759 

V.  Wright,  16  Mo.  App.  551 

244,  798,     870 
Whitecotton  v.  St.  Louis  &  IT.  R. 
Co..  250  Mo.  024,   157   S.   W. 

770 997,  1011 

Whitehead.  Re,  28  Ch.  D. 
(l']ng.)  614,  54  L.  J. 
Ch.  796,  52  L.  T.  X.  S. 

703,  33  W.  R.  601 1178 

v.  Ducker,  11  Smedes  &  M. 

(Miss.)    98    946 

V.  Greetham,    2    Bing.    464, 
9  E.  C.  L.  483,  10  Moo. 

C.  PI.  183   556 

v.  Jessup,  2  Colo.  App.  76, 

29   Pac.   910    632,     639 

v.  Jessup,  7  Colo.  App.  460, 

43  Pac.   1042    1003 

V.  Kennedv,   09   X.   Y.   402, 

aflirming  7  Hun  230.  .      747 
V.  Lord,     7     Exch.      (Eng.) 
091,  21  L.  J.  Exch.  2.39 

243,   244,     958 
V.  O'Siillivan,  12  Misc.  577, 

3:!    X.  Y.  S.    10')S    981 

v.   Wells.   29    Ark.    99    000 

U'liiteleiig's     Ccxids      I1S99]      P. 
(  Kn<.'.)    207.    OS    L.    .].    P.    97, 

SI   L.  T.  X.  S.  234   3.35 

Wliitcscll    V.    I'(M-I-.    105    i'a.    St. 

571,   30    Atl.    9;!3    392,     502 

Wiiite  Sewing  Mach.  Co.,  Ex  p., 
31   N.   Bruns  237    613,     621 


TABLE    OF    CASKS. 


cclxxi 


[References 

"Whiteside     v.     Adams     Express 
Co.,   8!)   Neb.  420,   131   N.   W. 

!)53 341,     345 

Wliitestown  Milling  Co.  v.  Zalm. 

!)  Ind.  App.  270,  3(i  X.  E.  0.13     487 
Whitfield  v.  Westbrook,  40  Miss. 

311   . (540 

AVhiting  v.  Bornev,  30  N.  Y. 
330,  86  Am.  Dec.  385, 
reversing  38  Barb.  303 

184,     200 
V.  Beebe,  12  Ark.  421.  .375,     396 
V.  Davidge,    23     App.    Cas. 
(D.  C.)    150    ....    277, 

723,  740,     880 

Whitlock,  Re,  51  Hun  351,  3  N. 

Y.    S.    855,    reversing   15    Civ. 

Pro.  204,  2  X.  Y'.  S.  085 .  .  108,     204 

Whitlow    V.    Whitlow,    109    Kv. 

573,  60  S.  W.  182,  22  Kv-  L. 

Rep.  1179   405,"  709,     710 

Whitlv      V.      Barker,      1      Root 

(Conn.)   406   465 

Whitman  v.  Haines,  51  Hun  640 
mem.,  4  N.  Y.  S.  48, 
affirmed  119  N.  Y.  639, 

23   N.   E.   1148    851 

V.  O'Brien,    29    Pa.    Super. 

Ct.  208    303,     304 

V.  Sheets.  11  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 

no,  20  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  1     116 
Whitnev   v.   Abbott,    101    Mass. 

50,  77   X.   E.  .524    

563,    577,     589 
V.  New    Orleans,     54     Fed. 
614,  13  U.  S.  App.  229, 
4  C.  C.  A.  521    .  .    963,     964 
V.  Silver,  22  Vt.  634.  .235,     420 
Whitsell  V.  Xew  Jersev  &  H.  R. 
R.  &  F.  Co..  68  App.  Div.  82, 
74  X.  Y.  S.  217    .  .    231,  432, 

792,  889,  905,     910 
Whit-sett    v.    City     Building    & 
Loan    Assoc,    3    Tenn. 

Ch.  526    896 

V.  Wamack,    95    Mo.    App. 

296,  69  S.  W.  24    849 

Whitson,  Re,  89  Mo.  58,  1  S.  W. 

125  461 

Whittaker    v.    Clarke,    33    Tex. 

647   1041 

V.  Murray,  15  111.  293  .  .  446 
V.  New  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
54  Super.  Ct.  8,  18  Abb. 
X.  Cas.  1],  11  Civ. 
Proc.  189,  3  X.  \'.  St. 
Rep.  537    ...   811,  813, 

1063,  1065,  1066 


ari'  to  ])ages.] 

Whittemore,   Re,   69   Cal.   67,   10 

Pac.   68    1212 

Re,  14  N.  D.  487,  105  X.  W. 

232   1307 

Wiiitten  V.  Jenkins,  34  (Ja.  207     260 
^^'hittimore    v.     Whittimore,     7 

Paige   (N.  Y.)    38   850 

Whittle  V.  Renner,  55  Cal.   395       20 

V.  Tarver,  75  Oa.  818    998 

V.  T(mipkins,   94   S.   C.  237, 

77  S.  E.  929   805 

Whitwell    V.    Aurora,    139    Mo. 

App.  597,  123  S.  W.  1045 

996,  1042,  1080,  1084 
Whvtehead,  Re,  4  M.  &  G.  768, 

43  E.  C.  L.  396  1174 

Wicker  v.  Hotchkiss,  62  111.  107, 

14  Am.  Rep.  75   632 

Wickersham  v.   Lee,   83   Pa.   St. 

416   606 

Wickliffe    v.     Davis,     2     J.     J. 

Marsh.    (Ky.)    69    571,     584 

Wicks  V.  Dean,   103  Ky.  69,  44 

S.  W.  397    ..  .' 171 

V.  Wheeler,     139    111.    App. 

412,  415,  416 331,     332 

Widmeyer  v.  Felton,  95  Fed.  926     649 

Widner  v.  Hunt,  4  la.  355 460 

Wieland    v.    White,    100    Mass. 

392    508 

Wier  V.  Myers,   34  Pa.   St.   377     720 
Wigg  V.  Simonton.   12   Rich.  L. 

(S.  C.)    583    525,  527,     528 

Wic-oins  V.  Com.,  53  S.  W.  649, 

21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  939    1102 

Wiglit    V.    Muxlow,    8    Ben.    52, 
29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17.629 

266,     268 
V.  Rindskopf,   43   Wis.   344     235 
Wightman   v.    Catlin,    113    App. 
Div.  24,  37  Civ.  Proc.  105,  98 
X.  Y.  S.  1071  .  .  679,  681,  682,     683 
Wilber    v.    Baker,   24    Hun    (X. 

Y'.)    24    1075,  1077 

V.  Robinson,    29    i\Io.    App. 

157    296,    303,     307 

Wilbur  V.  Lane,  53  Tex.  Civ. 

App.  240.  115  S.  W.  208  812 

Wilcox,  Re,  (Kan.)  133  Pac. 

547 1202,  1307 

V.  Boothe,  19  Ark.  684  .  . 

869,  872 
V.  Clement,  4  Denio  (X. 

Y.)  160  436 

V.  Kassick,    2    Mich.    165..      416 
V.  Pli'mmer,   4   Pet.   172,   7 
U.  S.   (L.  ed.  821   .... 

588,     594 


cclx:xii 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Wilcox    V.    Woodhall,    2    Caines 

(N.   Y.)    250    470 

Wild  V.  Odell,  56  Cal.  13G   ....      639 
Wilde  V.  Joel,  6  Duer    (N.   Y.) 

()71.   15   How.   Pr.   320    ..72i),     872 
Wilder     v.     Holden,     24     Pick. 

(Mass.)  8  635 

V.  Millard,    (Neb.)    141    N. 

W.  156 603 

V.  Secor.  72  Iowa  161,  33  N. 
W.  448,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 

236   606 

Wildev  V.  Crane.  63  Mich.  720, 

30  X.  W.  327   

663,  664,  728 
V.  Crane.  69  Mich.  17,  36 

N.  W.  734  675,  943 

Wiley  V.   Logan,   95   N.   C.    358, 

602,     838 
V.  Mahood,   10  W.  Va.   223 
364,  377,  385,  392,  393, 

394.     395 

V.  Pratt,  23   Ind.  628    440 

Wilhelmi    v.    Wilhelmi,    9    Pa. 

Dist.  Ct.  685    131 

Willi  ite     V.     Roberts,     4     Dana 

(Kv.)    172   667,     730 

Wilkes.  Re.  3  N.  Y.  S.  753  1196,  1201 
Wilkie  V.  Reynolds.  34  Ind.  App. 

527,   72    X.    E.    179    492 

Wilkins   v.   Battcnnan,   4   Barb. 

(N.   Y.)    47    998 

V.  Carmicliael,       1       Doii^l. 

(Fng.)   101.  105   ..977,     988 
V.  Hvdc.    142    Ind.    260.    41 

X.    E.    536    536 

V,  Major,  22  Quebec  Super. 

Cit.  264    534 

V.  Moore,   20   Kan.   538    .  . 

155.     224 
V.  Stidircr.  22   Cal.  231.   S3 

Am.    Dec.  64    345,     349 

Wilkinson    v.    Baxter.    97    Midi. 

.-,36.  rM  X.  W.  931 773 

V.  Crookston.  75  Minn.  184, 

77   X.   W.   797    .  .    886,     962 
V.  GriswoM.    12    Smedea    & 

M.  (Miss.)   669   ..   520,     522 
V.  HolKnvav.  7  Leigh   (Va.) 
277     .  .'    364.    378.    302. 

393.    304.     395 
V.    Pf.iph.,    226    111.    135,    80 
\.    K.  609    . .    327.  331. 

;!32,  333 
V.  Service.   21!l   III.   146. 
Ann.  Cas.  1012A  41.  04 
N.  E.  50  210 


are  to  pages.] 

Wilkinson  v.  Tildcn,  21  Blatchf. 

102     237,     239 

V.  Tilden,  14  Fed.  778 

254,  259,  262,  263,  265, 

371.     980 
Wilkowski  v.  Halle,  37  Ga.  678, 

05  Am.  Dec.  374 131 

Will  V.  Lvtle  Creek  Water  Co., 

100  Cal".  344,  34  Pac.  830 460 

Willard  v.  A.  Siegel  Gas-Fi.xture 
Co.,  47   Mo.  App.   1    .  . 

384,  408 
V.  Danville.  45  Vt.  93.  .710,  900 
V.  Goodrich,  31  Vt.  597  .  .  506 
V.  Holmes,   2   Misc.   303,  51 

X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  560 640 

V.  Holmes,  2  Misc.  303.  21 

N.  Y.  S.  998    641 

V.  Horbeck,  3  Den.   (X.  Y.) 

260 861 

V.  Judd.  15  Johns.    (X.  Y. ) 

531   132 

V.  Pennsylvania     Co.,      140 

111.    App.   306    767 

V.  Sperry.  1  Wend.   (X.  Y.) 

32  ." ,      ]  l.> 

V.  Williams,    10  Colo.  App. 

140,  50  Pac.  207 

701.  785.  787,     922 
W^illemim  v.  Bateson,  63  Mich. 

309,   29   X^   W.    734    760 

Willett   V.   Starr.   8    Johns.    (X. 

Y.)    123   114 

William     Firth     Co.     v.     Millen 
Cotton    Mills.    129    Fed.    141 

700,     780 
William     Rogers     Mfg.     Co.     v. 

Rogers,  38   Conn.   121    851 

Williams,   Ex   p.,    116    Cal.   512, 

48  Pac.  490 111.7 

Ex  p.,  31  Tex.  Crim.  272, 
20  S.  W.  580,  21  L.R  A. 
783..  16,  17,  97,  98.  99,  lOQ 
Re,  187  X.  Y.  280.  79  X. 
E.  1019,  reversing  107 
App.  Div.  627.  95  X.  Y. 

S.  1166   1016,  1018 

V.   Benton,    12    La.    Ann.  91     197 
V.  Blumenthal.     27     Wash. 

24.  67  Pac.  3!)3  .  .  158,  209 
V.  Boyd,  75  Ind.  2S()  ....  941 
v.  Brasliear.  16  La.  77  .  .  460 
y.  Brown.   28   Ohio   St.   547 

936.     940 

v.    J'.utlcr,   35    III.   544    

415.  426.     431 
V.  Close,    14    La.    Ann.    737     857 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


cclxxiii 


[References 

Williams  v.  Danziper,  01  Pa.  St. 

2;]2    48!t 

V.  Dodge,  8  Misc.  317.  28  X. 

Y.  S.  729  .  .  877,  878,  933 
V.   Dodge    Countv,    95    Wis. 

004,  70  N.  W.  821 1125 

V.  Fidelity,      etc.,      Co..      42 

Colo.  118,  15  Ann.  Cas. 

722,  93  Pac.  1U9    851 

V.  Fitch,  18  N.  Y.  546 188 

V.  Flowers.   90   Ala.    136,    7 

So.    439,    24    Am.     St. 

Pvep.  772 777.     778 

V.   Fowler,  1   M.  Clel.  &   Y. 

(Eng.)  269   905 

V.  Gibbs,  5  Ad.  &   El.  208, 

31  E.  C.  L.  317   569 

V.  Gibbs,  6  N.  &  M.   (Eng.) 

788,  2  Harr.  &  W.  241  553 
V.  Glenny,  16  N.  Y.  389..  .  887 
V.  Hotelier,  95  S.  C.  49,  78 

5.  E.    615    117 

V.  Huidekoper.    1   W.  N.  C. 

(Pa.)    376    878 

V.  Ingersoll,    23    Hun     (X. 

Y.)    284    977.  986,  1030 

V.  Ingersoll,  89  X.  Y.  508.  . 

981,     991 
V.  Inman.   1    Ga.   App.   321, 

57  S.  E.  1009 526 

V.  Johnson,   112  X.   C.   424, 

17    S.   E.    496.    .34   Am. 

St.  Rep.  513,  21  L.R.A. 

848 441,     445 

V.  Jones.  2  Q.  B.  276,  42  E. 

C.  L.  673    885 

V.  Jones,    4    W.    R.    (Eng.) 

99   537 

V.  Lewis,  45  App.  Div.  623, 

60  X\  Y.  S.  804  .  .  889,  892 
V.  McKissack,  117  Ala.  441, 

42   So.  489    175 

V.  Mattliews,    3    Cow.     (X. 

Y.)   2.52    681 

V.  Maxwell,  45  W.  Va.  297, 

31  S.  E.  909    300,     306 

V.  Miles,  63  Xeb.  851.  89  X. 

W.  4.55    755.  874, 

1040,   1049 
V.  Monroe,      18      B.      I\[on. 

(Ky.)   514   .  .   905,  906,     909 

V.  More,  63  Cal.  50   325 

V.  Mudie,  1  C.  &  P.  158,  11 

E.  C.   L.  354    187 

V.  Murrell,   13   S.  W.   1075, 

12  Ky.  L.  Rep.  307 ..  .      965 


are  to  pages.] 

Williams   v.   Xeth.   4   Dak.   .360, 

31   X.  W.  630   443 

V.  Xolan,  58  Tex.  70S..  399, 

400.  401,     418 
V.  Philadelphia.  208  Pa.  St. 

282,    57    Atl.   578    

665,  729,   795,     917 
V.  Reed,   3   Mason    (U.    S.) 
405,   29    Fed.   Cas.   Xo. 
17,733  ..  307,  380,  515, 

5.52.  508,     582 

V.  Reynolds,    86    Til.    263 942 

V.  Simmons,   79  Ga.   649,   7 

S.  E.  133   496 

V.  Smith,   14   C.    B.    X.    S. 

596.   108   E.   C.   L.   596     524 
V.  Smith,    1    Dowl.     (Eng.) 

032 442 

V.  State,    65    Ark.    159.    46 
S.  W.  186    .  .    251,  367, 

502,     503 
V.  State,  121  Ga.  195,  48  S. 

E.  938    1114 

V.  State,  144  S.  W.  622 .  .  .   132 
V.  Storrs,  6  .Johns.  Ch.  (X. 
Y.)  353,  10  Am.  Dec. 

340  608 

V.  Tatnall,  29  111.  553   ....      267 
V.  Thurston,      3      B.     Mon. 

(Ky.)    164    912 

V.  Tracey,   95    Pa.    St.    308, 

489,     491 
V.  Uncompahgre  Canal  Co., 
13    Colo.   469.    22    Pac. 

806 230,  424,  428,     435 

V.  Vanmeter,  8  Mo.  339,  41 

Am.    Dee.   044    650 

V.  Van       Valkenburg,        16 
How.  Pr.    (X.   Y.)    144 

445.     518 
V.  Walker,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  (X. 

Y.)     325     364.305, 

366.  369,     396 
V.  Webb.     2     Dowl.     X.     S. 

904,  5  Scott  X.  R.  898     115 
V.  West      Bav      City.      119 
Mich.    395.    78  '  X.    W. 

328   15 

V.  Wilson.    18   Misc.   42,   75 
X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  451,  40 

X.  Y.   S.  11.32    1043 

V.  Young.  46  la.  140 195 

Williamson  v.  Moriarty,   19  W. 

R.    (Eng.)    818 ■ 281 

Williamson  Stewart  Paper  Co. 
V.  Bosby shell,  14  ^lo.  App. 
534    ..  .". 462,     403 


celxxiv 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Willin  V.  Burdettc.  172  111.  117, 
49  N.  E.  1000  .  .248,  249,  282, 

283,     741 

Willis  V.  Carford,   38   Ore.   522, 

63    Pac.    985,    34    Pac. 

866,  53  L.R.A.  904  873,     874 

V.  Chowning,    90    Tex.    617, 

40   S.   W.   395,   59   Am. 

St.  Rep.  842   406 

V.  Gorrell,   102  Va.  746,  47 

S.   E.    826    363,     366 

V.  West,   60   Ga.   613.. 329,     330 
V.  Willis,    12    Pa.    St.    159. 

489,     491 
Wilmont   v.   Meserole,    48    How. 

Pr.    (X.  Y.)   430 540.     546 

Willoughby  v.  Mackall,   1   App. 

Cas.   (D!  C.)   411,  417   ..   275,     726 
Wills  V.  Cliandler,  2  Fed.  273,  9 

Rep.  808 , 500,     502 

V.  Kane.      2      Grant      Cas. 

(Pa.)   60   951 

V.  Xoyes,  12  Pick.    (Mass.) 

324   638 

V.  Wood.  28  Kan.  400.  .292.     306 
Willson   V.   Willson.   5   X.  J.   L. 

791   321 

Wilmerdings  v.  Fowler,  14  Abb. 

Pr.  X.  S.  (X.  Y.)  249..      524 
V.  Fowler,  55  X.  Y.  641    .  . 

528,     611 
Wilmington  v.  Brvan,  141  X.  C. 

666,  54  S.  E.  543    779 

V.  Macks,    86   X.   C.    88,   41 

Am.  Rep.  443 101 

Wiiminsiton    Mills    Mfg.    Co.    v. 
^  Gardner,    2    W.    X.    C. 

(Pa.)    486    453 

Wilson,    Re,    79    Kan.    450.    100 
Pac.  75    .  .    1168,   1255, 

1296,   1304 

Re,   79   Kan.   674,   17    Ann. 

Cas.  690.  100  Pac.  635, 

21  L.R.A.  (X.S.)  517   .. 

1218,  1219,   1221,   1264, 

1307,   132(;,   1327 

Re.  12  Fed.  235.  2ti  All).   L. 

J.  271    ..  237,  970.  971, 

972,  973.  974,  975,  978. 

988,     989,     994,     1006. 

loill,    10S7 

Re,    18    Fed.   33    1  135 

V.    Harries.       13       B.       .Mon. 

(Kv.)    330    91(1,      91.( 

V.   Beattv.  12  Out.  App.  252     613 
V.  Br.cker.   11    V.  C.   C.    P. 

268   531 


are  to  pages.] 

Wilson   V.    Brown,   6   Ont.   App. 

411    323 

V.  Burr,  25  Wend.   (X.  Y.) 

386    701,     877 

V.  Cantrell,  40  S.  C.  114.  IS 

S.  E.  517    .  .    277,  283, 

286,   298,     300 

V.  Carson,  12  Md.  54   334 

V.  Ciiamberlain,      242      111. 

260,  89  X.  E.  994 1283 

V.  CofKn,   2    Ciish.    (Mass.) 

316 519,  570,  582,     583 

V.  Doran,  110  X.  Y.  101,  17 

X"^.  E.  688,  reversing  39 

Hun  88    475 

V.  Ford,     L.     R.     3     Exch. 

(Eng.)     63     905,     909 

V.  Fowler.  3  Ark.  463    964 

V.  Godlove,  34  Mo.  337 177 

V.  Gordon,  73  S.  C.  155,  53 

S.  E.  79    184 

V.  Hart,   129   111.   App.   329 

876,  931,  937,  9.39 
V.  Ilorton,  140  X.  Y.  S.  980  732 
V.  House,    10    Bush     (Kv.) 

406 992.  1032 

V.  Jennings.  3  Ohio  St.  528 

308,  397,  409,  410 
V.  IMinneapolis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

31  Minn.  481,  18  X.  W. 

291    784,     886 

V.  Moran,  3  Bradf.   (X.  Y.) 

172  289 

V.  Mt.     Pleasant     Bank,     6 

Leigh   (Va.)   570   446 

V.  Ott,   173  Pa.  St.  253,  34 

Atl.    23,     51    Am.     St. 

Rep.  767   775 

V.  Otoe     County,     71     Xeb. 

435,  98  X."W.  1050    .  .    1124 
V.  Pophani,  91  Kv.  327,  15 

S.    W.    859,    12    Kv.   L. 

Rep.  904  ..   1153.  1174, 

1218,  1222,  1225,  1283, 

1292,  1294,  1324 
V.  Rostall,  4  T.  R.  753  172,  193 
v.  Russ,  20  Me.  421   .  .   548. 

550,  5.52,  570,  571.     601 
V.  St.    Louis,    etc.,    R.    Co., 

108   Mo.  588,   IS   S.   \\". 

2S6.    32    Am.    St.     IJep. 

(-.24    20 

V.  Seeber.     72     X.     ,^.     Va]. 

.'■>23,  66  Atl.  909   .  .890,     981 
V.  Sinitli.    22    Cratt.     (\'a.) 

493   245,     418 


TABLE    OF    CASES, 


cclxxv 


[RcfcrciK'os 

Wilson  V.  Poiitliprn  Pac.  1!.   (  o. 

53  Cal.  735 342,  478 

V.  Spring.  64  111.  14  .  .  342, 

477,  487,  492 
V.  State,  16  Ind.  392   308, 

319,  1104.  1105 
V.  State,  67  Kan.  44.  72 

Pac.  517  1119 

V.  State,    70    Miss.    595,    13 
So.    225,    35    Am.    St. 

Rep.  664    1116 

V.  State,    8    Yerg.     (Tenn.) 

509     1099 

V.  State.  41  Tex.  Crini.  115, 

51  S.  W.  916   1117 

V.  Stokes,    4    Munf.     (Va.) 

455  500,     503 

V.  Sullivan,  81  (!a.  238,  7  S. 

E.  274   533,     534 

V.  Turner,  1  Taunt.   (Eng.) 

398     345 

V.  Union    Distilling   Co.,    16 
Colo.  App.  429,  66  Pac. 

170  936.     940 

V.  United        Counties        of 
Huron,  etc.,  11  U.  C.  C. 

P.  548    401 

V.  Wadleigh,  36  Me.  496   .  . 

396,  409.     497 
V.  Wilson,  89  Neb.  749,  132 

X.  W.  401   332 

V.  Wilson.  25  R.  I.  446,  56 

Atl.  773   496 

V.  Young,  9  Pa.  St.  101  489,     491 
Wilson    Cotton    Mills    v.    C.    C. 
Randlenian  Cotton   ]Nrills,   116 
K.  C.  647.  21  S.  E.  431  .  .  308,     311 
Wilson's  Application.  9  Pa.  Dist. 

Ct.   102    G2 

Winibish    v.    Hamilton,    47    La. 

Ann.   246.   16   So.  856    533 

Winans  v.  Grable.  18  S.  D.  182, 
99  N.  W.  1110  .  .  973, 

1003,  1006,  1035 
V,  Mason,  33  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 

522  1003 

V.  Mason,  21  How.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  153  1003 

Winchester  v.  Grosvenor,  48  III. 

517  626 

V.  Heiskell,  16  Lea  (Tenn.) 

556 986,  1015 

Windett  v.  Union  Mut.  Life 
Ins.  Co.,  144  U.  S.  581,  12  S. 
Ct.  751.  36  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  551, 
affirming  36  Fed.  838    707 


are  to  pages.] 

Windmiller  v.  Chapman,  38    111. 

App.  276 480 

Windsor  v.  Prown,  15  R.  1.  182. 

9  Atl.  135,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  892  614 
Wing  V.   Hurlburt,    15   Vt.   607, 

40  Am.  Dec.  695 000 

Winkelman  v.  People.  50  111.  449 

1175,  1323 
Winkler.  Re,  146  App.  Div.  927, 

131  N.  Y.  S.  124    1069 

Re,  154  App.  Div.  532,  139 

X.  Y.  S.  755 765,  1068 

Winn  V.  Dillon,  27  Miss.  496   .  .      299 
V.  Itzel,    125   Wis.    19,    103 

X.  W.   220    198 

Winn's  Succession,  30  La.  Ann. 

702    484 

Winslow  V.  Central  Iowa  R.  Co., 
71  Iowa  197.  32  X.  W.  330  .  . 

664,  1046.  1047.  1049 
Winters  v.  Means.  25  Xeb.  242, 

41  X.  W.  157,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 

489  443 

Winterstien  v.  Walker,  10  Iowa 

198   438 

Wipller    v.    Warren,    163    Mich. 
189.  128  X.  W.  178,  17  Detroit 
Leg.  X.  905  .  .  261,  1005.  1016,  1060 
Wires  v.   Brigcs.   5  Vt.   101,   26 

Am.  Dec.  284   543,     544 

Wise   v.    Com.,   97   Va.   779,   34 

S.  E.  453   1205 

v.  Hamilton       Countv,      19 

111.   78    ■ 145 

V.  Hardin,  5  S.  C.  325  .  .277,     278 
V.  Pennsvlvania    Hard-Vein 
Slate    Co.,    3    Pa.    Dist. 

Ct.  564 129 

Wisecarver    v.     Wisecarver,     97 

Va.  452.  34  S.  E.  56 858 

Wishard   v.   Riddle,   64   la.   526. 

21  X.  W.  15   407,  411,  1003 

Withers    v.    Little,    56    Cal.    370 

258,  259,  265,     266 
v.  State,  36  Ala.  252    ..13, 

413,  1302,  1329 
Withev  V.  Osceola  Circuit  .Tudge 
108 'Mich.  168,  65  X.  W.  668 

716,     814 
Witmark  v.  Perley,  43  Misc.  14, 
86  X.  Y.  S.  756'.  .   1043.  1044, 

1050,  1079,  1085 
Witmer     v.       Port      Treverton 
Church,  17  Pa.  Co,  Ct.  38   .  .  .    1009 


cclxxvi 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References 

Wittenbrock  v.  Tarker.  102 
Cal.  93,  36  Pac.  374,  41  Am. 
St.   Rep.    172,   24    L.R.A.    197 

268,   270,     322 
Wobiirn  v.  Henshaw.  101  ]\lass. 

193,  3  Am.  Rep.  333 225 

Wolcott    V.   Holcomb,    31    X.    Y. 

125    542 

V.  Patterson.  100  :\IiL'li.  227, 
58  N.  W.  1006.  43  Am. 
St.  Rep.  456,  24  L.R.A. 

629 719,     900 

Wolf,  Re,  51  Hun  407,  4  N.  Y. 

S.  239 610,  617, 

619,   622,     623 
V.  Trochelman,  5  Robt.   (N. 

Y.)    611    254,     262 

V.  United  Rvs.  Co.,  155  Mo. 
App.  125,  133  S.  W. 

1172  1080,  1084 

Wolfe  V.  Lewis,  19  How.  280,  15 
U.  S.  (L,  ed.)  643  .... 

989,  1022 
V.  Mack,  81  Misc.  185,  142 

N.  Y.  S.  433.-768,  840,  1071 
Womack  v.  P'udikar,  47  La.  Ann. 

33.  16  So.  045  630 

Wonderlv    v.    Martin,     69     Mo. 

App.  8*4 353.  356,     380 

Wood,  Re,   2  Cow.    (N.  Y.)    29, 
note  b,  Hopk.  6    .  .    15, 

16,  80,       82 
Re,  210  U.  S.  246,  28  S.  Ct. 
621,  52  U.  S.    (L.  ed.) 
1036,    20    Am.    Bankr. 

Rep.  1   82(i,     82'i 

V.  An<]('rs,   5   T'ush.    (Kv.) 

601    .  .   804,  1014,  1015,  1040 
V.  Baldwin,     56     Hun     647 

mem.,  10  N.  Y.  S.  195     964 
V.  Banjrs.     2     Pons.      (Del.) 
435,  48  At!.  189  .  .  375, 

383,     395 
V.  Barker.  49  Mich.  295,  13 

N.   W.   597    942 

V.  Brown.     50     Suj)er.     Ct. 

(X.   v.)    516    274,     275 

V.  Downes,      18      \'es.      ,Fr. 

(Knjr.)    120    273 

V.  ]'".tiwai)da  Water  Co., 
147    Cal.    228,    81    I'ac 

512    225,     626 

V.  fJiliHon,    1    Cow.    (X.    \.) 

597    10,     114 

V.  Cimston,      Style      (Kii;^'.) 

462    123 


are  to  pages.] 

Wood  V.  Holmes,  10  X.  Y.  Wkly. 

Dig.  121 ." .   476 

V.  Hopkins,  3  X.  J.  L.  689  245 
V.  Hughes,  138  Ind.  179,  37 

X.  E.  588  1026 

V.  Xew  York,  44  App.  Div. 

299,  60  X.  Y.  S.  759 

397,  398 

V.  State,  92  Ind.  269  1102 

V.  State,   4   Okla.   Crim. 

436,  112  Pac.  11 1116 

V.  Trustees     of     Xorthwest 

Presbyterian  Church,   7 

Abb.    Pr.    (X.    Y.)    210 

note    1074 

V.  Weir,    5    B.    Mon.    (Ky.) 

544   527 

V.  Winship     Mach.    Co.,    83 

Ala.   424,   3   So.   757,  3 

Am.  St.  Rep.  754    ....      778 
V.  Wood,    59    Ark.    441,    27 

S.  W.   641.  43   Am.   St. 

Rep.  42,  28  L.R.A.  157  450 
V.  Wood,  30  Misc.  50,  62 

X.  Y.  S.  854  909 

V.   Wood.  4  Russ.  (Eng.) 

558  537 

V.  Young,  141  X.  Y.  218, 

36  X.  E.  193  606 

Woodard,  Re.  95  Fed.  955.  2 
Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  692  .  .  817, 

819,  825 
Woodbury  v.  Conger,  61  Hun 

624  mem.,  15  X.  Y,  S. 

26  953 

V.  Xevada  Southern  R.  Co., 

120  Cal.    367,    52    Pac. 

650   254,     419 

V.  Xevada   Southern  R.  Co., 

121  Cal.    165,    53    Pac. 

450    237,     254 

Woodford    V.     Rosbacli,    0    Civ. 

Pro.  315,  appeal  dismissed  99 

X.  Y.  659    255,  384.  391, 

397,     408 

Wooding  V.  Crain,  11  Wash.  207, 

39  I'ac.  442   999,  1000 

\\'(>o(llaiid  Hank  v.  'rreadwcll,  55 

Cal.  379    775 

Woodmen   of  (lie  \^'o^ld   \'.  Rut- 

lerlf'e.    133    Cal.    640.    65    Pac. 

110.-)    510 

Woodrow  v.  Ilenneii,  (i  Mart.  X. 

S.    (L;i.)    15(i    391.     519 

Woiidiiiir    \-.    llursoii.    32    Haii). 

(\.  \.)  557 ISO 


TABLE    OF    CASES. 


celxxvii 


[Reforonces 

Woods  V.  r.lodgctt,  15  N.  IT.  569     541 
V.  Dickinson,  7  Mackov    (D. 

C.)  301 '.....      736 

V.  Dickinson,  18  D.  C.  301  991 
V.  Jensen,  130  Cal.  200,  62 

Pac.  473  342 

V.  Little,   134   Fed.   229,   67 
C.    C.    A.    157,    13    Am. 
Bankr.  Rep.  742  .  .  628,     629 
V.  Verrv,    4    Grav     (Mass.) 

357 1004,  1030,  1086 

V.  Walsh,   7   N.   D.   376,   75 

N.  W.  767   685,     729 

Wood's  Case,  2  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  29 

note  b    10 

Woods    County    Union    Bank    v. 
Shore,  87  Kan.  140,   123   Pac. 

880    338 

Woodward,    Re,    27    Mont.    355, 

71    Pac.    161    ....     94,  1250 
Re,  4  Johns.   (N.  Y.)   289..      324 
V.  Willard.  33  la.  542    ....      445 
Wool,  Re,  30  Mich.  299   ..    1291, 

1308,    1324,  1327 
Woolf  V.  Jacobs,   45    Super.   Ct. 

(X.  Y.)   583    1032.  1048 

Woollov.  Re,  11  Bush.  (Ky.)  95 
1190',  1194,  1195,  1196,'  1197, 
1198,  1200,  1205,  1206,  1290.  1296 
Wooten.  Re.  118  Fed.  670  .  .307,  313 
V.  Denmark,  85  Ga.  578.  11 

S.  E.  861  1026, 

1027,  1029 
Workinjrmen's    Union   Assoc,   v. 
Reynolds,  135  Ga.  5.  08  S.  V. 

697    420,     427 

Workman  v.   McKinstry,   21   U. 

C.   Q.  B.  023    323 

Worley  v.  Hineman.  6  Ind.  App. 

240.'  33   N.   E.   260    ....    U2.     346 
Worrall,    Re,    1    Del.    Co.    Rep. 

(Pa.)    377    552,     947 

Worster  v.   Forbush,   171    Mass. 

423.   50   N.   E.   936    ....    323.     324 
Worth,    Re,    130    Fed.    927,    12 

Am.    Bankr.    Rep.    500     S22 
V.  Worth.  155  Cal.  599,  102 

Pac.   663    775 

Worthinfjton    v.   Morris,   98   Kv. 

54.  32'^  S.  W.   269    '.      859 

Wortman    v.    Kleinschniidt.    12 

Mont.   316,   30   Pac.   280    ....      854 
Wovtisek.  Re.  120  App.  Div.  373, 
105  N.   Y.   S.   144      ...    1216, 

1246,  1320 
Wrav.    Re.    157    App.    Div.    905, 
142  N.  Y.  S.  186    90 


are  to  pages.] 

Wregmann  v.  Morinura,  12 
Misc.  37.  33  N.  Y.  S.  39  af- 
firming 9  i\Ii.sc.  715,  29  N.  Y. 

S.   1157    532 

Wright.  Re.  12  C.  B.  N.  S.  705. 

104  E.  C.  L.  705.  .1212,  1223 
V.  Aldrich.  60  X.  U.  161   .  .      528 

V.  Allen.  26  Wis.  661   430 

V.  Andrews,   130   ]Mass.    149     446 

V.  Baldwin.  51  Mo.  269 781 

V.  Black.  2  Wend.    (X.   Y.) 

258    541 

V.  Burroughes,  3  C.  B.  344, 

54  E.  C.  L.  344   713 

V.  Cobleigh,  21  X.  TT.  339   .  . 

979,  988,  994 
V.  Coles,   11  Mete.    (Mass.) 

293    460 

V.  Daily.  26  Tex.  730.. 340,     392 
V.  Dufield,  2  Baxt.    (Tenn.) 

218 984,     987 

V.  Ellison,  1  Wall.  16,  17  U. 

S.  (L.  'ed.)  555   232 

V.  Evans,  53  Ala.  103.. 372,  490 
V.  Fairbrother,  81  :\le.  38, 

16  Atl.  330  .  .  882.  888.  889 
V.  Forbes.  1  How.  Pr.  (X. 

Y.)  240  474 

V.  Gillespie,    43     Mo.    App. 

244   891,  914,     956 

V.  Hake,  38  Mich.  525  1040 

V.  Hanna,  98  Ind.  217  636 

V.  Hull,  2  Ont.  Pr.  26  443 

V.  Kansas  City,  etc..  R.  Co.. 

141  Mo.  App.  518.  126 

S.  W.  517  .  .  741.  756,  760 
V.  Knoxville,  (Tenn.)  59  S. 

W.  677  782.  784 

v.  Ligon,  Harp.  Eq.  (S.  C.) 

166 571,  578 

v.  McCampbell,   75   Tex. 

644.  13  S.  W.  293  .... 

831.  832.  836 
V.  McLarinan.  92  Ind.  103  143 
V.  Schmidt,  47  la.  233   .... 

124.     129 
v.  Smith,  13  Barb.    (X.  Y.) 

414   902,     912 

v.  Snell.    12   Ohio   Cir.   Dec. 

308,    22    Ohio    Cir.    a. 

86   269 

V.  Sorseby.  2  C.  &   M.   671, 

4    Tvrw.    434.    3    L.    J. 

Exch.   207    402 

y.  State,  18  Ga.  383    352 

v.  State,    3    Heisk.    (Tenn.) 

256    713 


cclxxviii 


TABT.K    OF    CASES. 


[rvofcrences 

Wright  V.  Tcl)bitts,  01  U.  8.  2ry2 
23   U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    320 

673.  728,     872 
V.  \Yalker.  30  Ark.  44.  .204,     290 
V.  Wood^ate,  2  C.  :\I.  &  R. 
(Enir.)   573  Tvrw.  &  G. 

12,  1   Gale   329    123 

V.  Wright.  70  N.  Y.   98    .  . 

807,   981,     989 
Wuest  V.  American  Tobacco  Co., 
10   S.   D.   394,   73   N.   Vv^   903 

640,     642 
Wiilff   V.   WulfT.    74   Misc.    213, 

133  X.  Y.  S.  807    419 

Wyandotte  &  K.  C.  Bridge  Co. 
V.  Wyandotte  County  Com'rs, 

10  Kan.  32G   ." 1151 

Wvant  V.  Pottorff,  37   Ind.  512     777 
W^yatt,    Re,    102    Cal.    264.    36 

Pac.  58G    1224,  1272 

V.  Buell,  47  Cal.  624 536 

V.  Burdette,    43    Colo.    208, 

95  Pac.  336  ..  639.  642,     643 

V.  Burr.  25  Ark.  476 415 

V.  Fromme,  70  Mo.  App.  614     497 
Wvckoff  V.   Bergen,    1   X.   J.   L. 

214,  248   252.  397,     500 

Wvland    V.    Griffith,    96    la.    24, 

64  X.  W.  673   180 

Wylie  V.  Coxe,  15  Bow.  415,  14 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  753  .... 
247,  673,  723,  728,  764. 

803,     980 
V.  Sierra  Gold  Co.,  120  Cal. 
485,   52    Pac.    809    .... 

455,  457.  481.     482 
Wvman   v.   Snyder,   112   111.   90, 

1  X.  E.  469 1031 

Wvnn    V.    Wilson    Hempst.    698, 

30  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  18.116    561 

Wvnne  v.  Parsons,  57  Cotui.  73, 
17  Atl.  362  139,     851 


83 


40 


Yale,  Ex  p.,  24  Cal.  85  Am.  Dec. 

62   33,  81. 

Yamnshita.    Re.    30   Wash.    234, 

70   Pac.  482.  94   Am.  St.  Rep. 

860.  59  l>.i:.A.  671    .  .    34.  3(i, 
Yatitis    V.    I,exin<:rfon.   94    S.    W. 

653,  29  Ky.  I..  Rep.  689.  .101.     103 
Yarh'irougli    v.    \\'c;iver.    6    Tex. 

Civ.  .A|')i).  215.  25  S.  W.  468.  .      859 
Yardlcy  v.  Culbhertson,  108  l*a. 
St.  395,  1  At!.  765,  56 
Am.  Rep.  218 280 


are  to  pages.] 

Y'ardlev  v.  State.  50  Tex.  Crim. 
G44,  100  S.  W.  399.  123 
Am.  St.  Rep.  809.  .224.     332 
Yates,  Ex  p.,  9  Ring.  455,  23  E. 

C.  L.  331 1174 

V.  Blodgett.     8     How.     Pr. 

(X.  Y.)  278 600 

V.  Horanson.  7  Robt.  12    .  .      444 
V.  Kinnev,  33  Xeb.  853.  51 

X.  W.   230    1052 

V.  Milwaukee,  10  Wall.  497, 

19  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  984  .  .  254 
V.  Monroe.  13  111.  212.  219  561 
V.  Olmsted.  56  X.  Y.  632..  184 
V.  Robertson.  80  Va.  475   .  . 

724.     782 
V.  Shcpardson,  27  Wis.  238 

706.  785.  881,     924 
Yeager   Ex   p.,    11   Gratt.    (Va.) 

655   148 

Y'eagley  v.  Webb,  86  Ind.  424.  .      133 
Yeanians  v.  James.  27  Kan.  195 

272,  273,  281.  282.  283.  285.     287 
Yeiser  v.  Lowe.  50  Xeb.  310.  69 

X.  W.  847   907 

Yerger  v.  Aiken.  7  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 

r)39     782.    000.     003 

Y'erkes  v.  Crum,  2  X.  D.  72.  49 

X.   W.   422    293 

Y^oakley     v.     Hawlev,      5     Lea 
(Tenn.)   670.  673    .■.    237.  249, 

457.  458.  805,  1076 
Yoakum  v.  Tilden.  3  W.  Va.  1G7, 

100  Am.  Dec.  738   .  .   363.  500,     501 
Yockev    V.     Woodburv    Cnuntv. 

130"Towa  412.  106  X.  W.  950     424 
Yolo  Coiuitv  V.  Joyce.   156  Cal. 

429.  105  Pac.  125    1119 

Yonge  y.  Hooper.  73  Ala.  119  .  .   748 

V.  St.  Louis  Transit  Co.. 

109  ^To.  App.  235,  84  S. 

W.  184  ....  981,  1042, 

1076,  1077.  1080.  1084,  1085 

Yordan  y.  Hess.  13  Jolms.  (X. 

Y.)  492  197 

York  Biuik  v.  .\pplcton,  17   Mc. 

55    411 

Yorton    \'.     Miiw.iukee.    etc.,    R. 
Co..   62   Wis.    367.   21    X.   W. 

516.  23  X.  W.  401   860 

Yonnians  v.  Smith,  153  X.  Y. 
214,  47  X.  E.  265  .  .  119.  1  •.''), 

121,  135 
Youii;r.  Ex  1).,  209  U.  S.  123, 
14  Ann.  Cas.  764.  28  S.  Ct. 
441.  52  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  714.  13 
L.R.A.(X.S.^  932 1147,  1158 


TABLE    OF    CASES.  Cclxxix 

[References  are  to  pages.] 

Younpr.  Re,  3  :\r(l.  Ch.  401,.  .24.-),  802        Youngberg  v.  El  Paso  Brick  Co., 

Re,  75  N.  J.  L.  83,  07  Atl.  ('lex.)    ]5.-,  S.  W.  71.-)    38.") 

717 15,1211,  1218       Yoiingerman  v.  Puoli    (la.)    125 

Re,  59  Ore.   348,  Ann.   ('as.  X.  \A'.  321   602 

imSB    1310,    IK)    Pac.  Younguian  v.  [Miller,  98  J'a.  St. 

95,  reliearing  denied  59  196 -)52,     5(>4 

Ore.     362,     Ann.     Cas.  Youree     v.     Hamilton,     47)     La. 

1913B    1310,    110    Pac.  Ann.  1191   533 

1060    ..    176.   212,   213,  224       Yonrie    v.    Xelson,    1    Tenn.    Cli. 

Ee,   33  Utah.   382,  14  Ann.  614,  615 721,     874 

Cas.   596,   94    Pac.    731,  Yuells  v.  Havnian,  84  N.  Y.  S. 

126  Am.  St.  Rep.  843,  4G0    793.   869,    870,     882 

17  L.R.A.(X.S.)    108.  .  .  Yuengling  v.  Betz,  58  App.  Div. 

158,  210,  211           8.  68  N.  Y.  S.  574  .  .  237,  263,     264 
Re,    142    Fed    891,    Hi    Am. 

Bankr.  Rep.  106    820 

V.  Armstrong.   13  W.  N.  C.  y 

(Pa.)    313    117                                        ^ 

V.  Crawford.    23    Mo.    App. 

432.  434 709.  711,     900       Z .  Re,  89  Mo.  App.  426 

V.  Dearborn,  27  N.  IT.  324.  .  1227,  1316 

792,  804.  977.  998,  1030,  Zahel  v.  Schroeder,  35  Tex.  308     202 

1040.    1045.    1048,  1049       Zabriski    v.   WoodrnfF,   48   N.   J. 

V,  Gormlev,  120  la.  372.  94  L.   610,   7   Atl.   336    ....    704,     741 

N.   W.   922    626       Zacliarv  v.  State,  53  Fla.  94.  43 

V.  Howell,  64  App.  Div.  246.  So.   925    ..    1289,   1308,   1326,1328 

72  N.  Y.  S.  5    .  .    1078,  Zahm  v.  Roval  Frate)-nnl  Union, 

1079,  1085           15  i   Mo.  App.   70,   133   S.   W. 

V.  Lanznar,    133    :\Io.    App.  374    481 

130,  112  S.  ^Y.  17   ....  Zaitz  v.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 

241,  242,  243,  701.  703,  .''2  App.  Div.  626.  65  N.  Y.  S. 

784,  793,  798.  800.  864,     952  395    1043 

V.  Lindsfiv.     3     W.     X.     C.  Zatnlove.  Re.  156  App.  Div.  79. 

(Pa.)  169 549  141  N.  Y.  S.  75    l'^39,  1249 

V.  Lindstrom,  115  111.  App.  Zeigler  v.  Hughes.  55  Til.  288   .  . 

239    646                                          277.284.296,     302 

V.  Murphv.  120  Wis.  49.  97  v.  Mize.  132  Ind.  403,  31  X. 

X.  W.  496   .  .   280.  284,     285  E.   945    760 

V.  Renshaw,    102    :\Io.    App.  Zellee  v.  Bobb,  13  Mo.  App.  581     849 

173.  76  S.  W.  701    ....  Zenon,     Succession     of,     34     Da. 

976.    979.    1001.    1016,  Ann.    1187     870 

1031,  1042,  1063,  1071,  Zent  v.  Sullivan.  47  Wash.  315. 

1072  1080           l-""^  A"'i-  C"as-  19.  91  l^ac.  1088, 

V.  Shore,  2  U.  C.  Q.  B.  0.  S."  13    L.R.A.(X.S.)    244    907 

040  AQi       Zentniire    v.    Brailey.    89     Xeb. 

rr    Qfofo  "fip-  p'n"  r.9- ■  ■  ■  iV.  158,  130  X'.  W.   1047    ..    972. 
V.  state.  65  C^a.  bZo  ..  154, 

-iq/.  9nF                                                  998.    104d,  1064 

c,            ^r    ni-      «f     10^'  ^ier.  Re,  127   Fed.  399,   U  Am. 

V.  Stone.    55    Ohio    St.    125,  Bi^^^kv.    Rop.    ",27                 820 

45  X.  E   57     .  .          .  848               ^^  -^^^  Fed.  102.  73  C.  C.  A. 

V.  Thomas,  17  Fla.   169.  35  ggg,     15     Am.     Bankr. 

Am.  Rep.  93   ..    33.  96.  98                       Rep.  040.  affirming  127 

V.  Whitney,    18    Fla.    54    .  .  Y(h\        399        11        \ni 

928.  946                       Bankr.  l^vco.  527    .  .^  .  ." 

V.  Wri-ht.  1  Campb.  (Eng.)  630.  817.  819.  829.     825 

139    341       Zilpha,  The.  40  Ct.  CI.  200    .... 

T.  Young,  IS  Minn.  90   133                                          239.  241.  250,     458 


CCIXXX  TABLE    OF    CASES. 


[References  are  to  pages.] 

Zosbaum    v.    Parker,    66    Barb. 


Zimmer  v.   Metropolitan    St.   R.  ^^-^f ""    '■■    f  J'^^^;    ""    "o 

Co.,  32  Misc.  262,  65  X.  Y.  S.  ^_  341,  affirmed  55  N.  ^.  120 


977   1065,  1068 


663,   683,    741,     749 


ATTORNEYS  AT  LAW 


VOLUME  I 

CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Historical. 

§     1,  The  Advocates  of  Ancient  Greece. 

2.  The  Roman  Cognitors,  Procurators,  and  Advocates. 

3.  The  Jurisconsults. 

4.  In  England. 

5.  Barristers  and  Solicitors. 
G.  In  the  American  Colonies. 

7.  The  Honorarium. 

8.  Bill  of  Privilege. 

Definitions   and  Distinctions. 

U.  Signification  of  Word  "Attorney." 
10.  "Attorney  at  Law"  Defined. 

11.  "Practicing  Attorney"  Defined. 

12.  Compared  with  Other  Vocations. 
13.  Attorney  as  Officer  of  Court. 

14.  As  Public  Officer. 

15.  As  Constitutional  and  Judicial  OflScer. 

16.  "Attorneys  at  Law"  and  "Counselors"  Distinguished. 

17.  "Lawyer"  Defined. 

18.  "Client"  Defined. 

19.  "Attorney  in  Fact"  Defined. 
20.  "Attorney  of  Record"  Defined. 

Historical. 

§  1.  The  Advocates  of  Ancient  Greece.  — The    early    Gre- 

■cian  litigants  were  obliged  to  conduct  their  trials  in  person,  the 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 1. 


INTRODUCTION.  [§    2 


aid  of  advocates  being  deemed  to  have  an  undue  weight  with  the 
judges.  They  were,  however,  permitted  to  consult  experts  in 
the  law,  and  these  experts,  it  seems,  might  write  arguments  which 
their  patrons  could  memorize  and  deliver.  At  a  later  period 
the  advocate  was  allowed  to  appear  for  his  client,  but  there  was 
no  abridgment  of  the  rights  of  either  party  to  the  suit.  Every 
opportunity  Avas  afforded  the  offender  properly  to  present  his 
side  of  the  issue  without  being  permitted  to  take  any  advantage 
of  his  opponent.  Poor  and  rich,  ignorant  and  learned,  honest 
and  dishonest,  were  placed  on  an  equal  footing  before  their  tri- 
bunals. It  was  the  case  rather  than  the  persons  upon  whom  the 
court  passed  judgment.  After  Solon's  time  Greece  developed 
some  famous  advocates,  or  pleaders  as  they  were  then  termed,  act- 
ing either  as  prosecutors  for  the  state,  in  defense  of  the  accused, 
or  in  civil  suits.^ 

§  2.  The  Roman  Cognitors,  Procurators,  and  Advo- 
cates. —  A  suitor  was  obliged,  imder  the  old  Roman  laws,  ta 
appear  personally  in  court  in  his  litigation,  the  aid  of  others 
being  denied  excepting  in  those  actions  which  concerned  the 
entire  community,  or  which  involved  questions  of  personal  lib- 
erty, or  guardianship.  When  the  inconvenience  of  this  system 
became  apparent  parties  were  allowed  to  seek  and  receive  the 
aid  of  a  cognitor  who  might  advocate  or  defend  their  causes. 
Later,  procurators  were  permitted  to  conduct  litigation  in  the 
name  of  their  principals.^  "The  term  advocatus  was  not  applied 
to  a  pleader  in  the  courts  until  after  the  time  of  Cicero.  Its 
proper  signification  was  that  of  a  friend  who,  by  his  presence  at 
a  trial,  gave  countenance  and  support  to  the  accused.  It  was  al- 
ways considered  a  matter  of  the  greatest  importance  that  a  party 
who  had  to  answer  a  criminal  charge  should  appear  with  as  many 
friends  and  partisans  as  possible.  This  array  answered  a  double 
purpose,  for  by  accompanying  him  they  not  only  acted  as  what 
we  should  call  witnesses  to  character,  but  by  their  numbers  and 
influence  materially  affected  the  decision  of  the  tribunal.  Not 
unfrequently   (when  some  noble  Roman  who  had  gained  popu- 

1  Scott's  Evolution  of  Law  (3d  ed.),  2  Forsytli'a  Ilortoiisiua,  p.  87;  Inst. 

],.  no.  Just.   (Sandars),  p.  469. 


I 


§    3]  INTEODUCTION.  3 

larity  in  his  provincial  government  had  to  defend  himself  against 
an  accusation)  an  embassy  of  the  most  distinguished  citizens 
of  the  province  was  sent  to  Eome  to  testify  by  their  presence  to 
his  virtues,  and  deprecate  an  unfavorable  verdict.  Thus  when 
Cicero  defended  Balbus  he  pointed  to  the  deputies  from  Gades, 
men  of  the  highest  rank  and  character,  who  had  come  to  avert, 
if  possible,  the  calamity  of  a  conviction.  Although  in  this  point 
of  view  the  witnesses  who  were  called  to  speak  in  favor  of  the 
accused  might  be  called  advocati,  the  name  was  not  confined  to 
such,  but  embraced  all  who  rallied  round  him  at  the  trial."  ^ 

§  3.  The  Jurisconsults.  —  In  addition  to  the  advocates  who 
appeared  in  the  courts,  another  class  of  lawyers,  known  as  juris- 
consults, became  established  in  Eome.  It  was  their  privilege 
to  expound  the  law  for  the  benefit  of  their  fellow  citizens,  and 
it  is  said  that  their  houses  were  so  frequented  that  they  were  styled 
the  oracles  of  the  state.  "They  contented  themselves  with  the 
reputation  which  they  gained  as  lawyers,  to  whom  their  fellow 
citizens  might  resort  with  confidence  for  advice,  or  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  study  of  law,  for  the  sake  of  the  emoluments  they 
were  thereby  enabled  to  acquire ;  for  although  there  can  be  no- 
doubt  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  their  opinions  were  given 
gratuitously,  as  a  means  of  gaining  popularity  and  influence^ 
there  seems  to  have  been  no  law  against  their  being  paid  by  fees, 
which  applied  only  to  advocates;  and  in  this  respect  they  re- 
sembled the  rhetoricians  of  Athens,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  com- 
posed speeches  for  litigant  parties,  and  by  that  means  earned  a 
livelihood."  As  a  knowledge  of  the  jus  civile  was  possessed  by 
few,  the  adepts  in  its  mysteries  seem  to  have  had  a  sufficiently 
good  opinion  of  themselves,  and  to  have  plumed  themselves  not  a 
little  on  their  black-letter  lore.  Cicero,  however,  ridicules  their 
pretensions,  and  in  his  speech  in  defense  of  Murena  says  that 
three  days  are  sufficient  to  master  this  kind  of  learning.  "If, 
therefore,  you  put  me  on  my  mettle,  overwhelmed  with  business 
as  I  am,  I  will  in  three  days  declare  myself  a  jurisconsult."  * 

3  Forsyth's  Hortensius,  p.  86.  See  also  Ferriere's  Roman  Law,   pp.. 

4  Forsyth's   Hortensius,   pp.   87-89.       48-50. 


4  IHTRODUCTION.  [§4: 

§  4.  In  England.  — In  ancient  England,  as  in  Greece  and 
Rome,  suitors  were  at  one  time  obliged  to  conduct  their  litiga- 
tion in  person.^  At  a  very  early  period,  however,  it  seems  that 
the  courts  had  the  power  to  permit  litigants  to  appear  by  a  repre- 
sentative, and  also  the  right  to  name  such  representative ;  ^  but, 
be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  certain  that  it  became  customary  to  obtain 
the  King's  writ  commanding  the  courts  to  permit  the  person  in 
whose  favor  the  writ  issued  to  appear  by  an  attorney  named 
therein;  and  ultimately  statutes  were  enacted  under  which  all 
persons  had  the  privilege  of  appearing  in  court  by  attorneys  ap- 
pointed by  themselves.'  The  first  act  of  this  character  seems 
tt)  have  been  the  statute  of  Westm.  2,  c.  10.^  As  this  liberty  soon 
became  abused,  by  the  appointment  of  ignorant  attorneys,  the 
statute  of  4  Hen.  IV,  c,  18,  was  enacted  in  the  year  1402  ;  it  is  en- 
titled "The  punishment  of  an  attorney  found  in  default,"  and  in 
these  words:  "Item. — For  sundry  damages  and  mischiefs  that 
have  ensued  before  this  time,  to  divers  persons  of  the  realm,  by  a 
great  number  of  attorneys,  ignorant  and  not  learned  in  the  law,  as 
they  were  wont  to  be  before  this  time,  it  is  ordained  and  estab- 
lished, that  all  the  attorneys  shall  be  examined  by  the  justices, 
and  by  their  discretion  their  names  put  upon  the  roll ;  and  they 
that  be  good  and  virtuous,  and  of  good  fame,  shall  be  received, 
and  sworn  well  and  truly  to  serve  in  their  offices ;  and,  especially, 
that  they  make  no  suit  in  a  foreign  country;  and  the  other  at- 
torneys shall  be  put  out  by  the  discretion  of  the  said  justices; 
and  that  their  masters,  for  whom  they  were  attorneys,  be  warned 
to  take  others  in  their  places,  so  that  in  the  meantime  no  damage 
or  prejudice  come  to  their  said  masters;  and  if  any  of  the  said 
attorneys  do  die,  or  do  cease,  the  justices  for  the  time  being,  by 
their  discretion,  shall  make  another  in  his  place,  which  is  a  virtu- 
ous man,  and  learned,  and  sworn  in  the  same  manner  as  afore  is 
said.    And  if  any  such  attorney  be  hereafter  notoriously  found  in 

8:5    I'.l.    Com.    25.      See    also    State  7  State   v.    Kirke,    12   Fla.   278,    95 

r.    Kirkc,   12    Fla.   278,   95   Am.   Dec.  Am.  Dec.  314;  Harshey  v.  Blackmarr, 

.•{14;    Harshey    v.    Blackmarr,    20    la.  20    la.   IGl,   89  Am.   Dec   520;    In   re 

Kil,  89   Am.   Dec.  520.  Burr,    1    Wlieei.    Crim.    (N.   Y.)    503. 

6  In   re   Burr,   1   Wheel.   Crim.    (N.  8  3  Bl.  Com.  2G. 
V.)    503. 


§    5]  INTRODUCTION.  5 

any  default,  of  record  or  otherwise,  he  shall  forswear  the  court, 
and  never  after  be  received  to  make  any  suit  in  any  court  of  the 
King.  And  that  this  ordinance  be  holden  in  the  exchequer,  after 
the  discretion  of  the  treasurer  and  of  the  barons  there."  ^ 

§  5.  Barristers  and  Solicitors.  —  Lawyers  in  England  are 
divided  into  two  grades — barristers  and  solicitors.  The  business 
of  the  solicitor  is  to  carry  on  the  practical  and  more  mechanical 
part  of  a  suit,  while  it  rests  wdth  the  barrister  to  review  and  cor- 
rect the  pleadings,  and  manage  the  cause  on  the  trial.^°  The  oiRce 
of  solicitor  is  almost  entirely  regulated  by  statute  now,^^  but 
barristers  are  "called  to  the  bar"  by  some  one  of  the  four  inns 
of  court.  The  "inns"  are  voluntary  unincorporated  societies  of 
equal  rank  and  status,  independent  of  the  state,  which  have  simi- 
lar constitutions,  and  are  bound  by  the  same  rules ;  they  are  out- 
side the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts,  but  are  subject  to  the  visitatorial 
jurisdiction  of  the  judges.     Their  origin  is  not  certain.^^ 

"In  the  inns  of  court  as  now  constituted  there  are  three  ranks 
of  members,  namely,  students,  barristers,  and  benchers.  The 
benchers  are  the  governing  body,  who  alone  have  power  to  fill  up 
vacancies  in  or  to  add  to  their  own  number,  to  admit  persons  as 
students,  to  call  students  to  the  bar,  and  to  exercise  a  disciplinary 
jurisdiction  over  the  members  of  the  society.  While  the  four  inns 
are  independent  of  each  other,  they  act  together  in  matters  affect- 
ing their  common  interest.  ISTo  person  who  has  been  expelled 
from  one  of  the  inns  is  admitted  a  member  of  any  of  the  others. 
The  four  inns  have  agreed  on  certain  regulations  which  govern  the 
admission  of  students  and  the  calling  of  barristers;  they  have 
founded  and  provide  funds  for  the  council  of  legal  education, 
which  makes  provision  for  the  instruction  and  examination  of 
students  in  law,  and  to  which  the  inns  have  delegated  the  task  of 
testing  the  intellectual  fitness  of  students  desiring  to  be  called 

9  In  re  Burr,  1  Wheel.  Crim.  (N.  12  2  Halsbury's  Laws  of  England, 
Y.)  503.  See  also  In  re  Day,  381  111.  358.  See  also  State  v.  Kirke,  12  Fla. 
73,  54  N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  53  9.               278,   95   Am.   Dec.   314;    In    re   Day, 

10  1  Kent's  Com.  307.  181  111.  73,  54  N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A. 

11  Halsbury's     Laws     of     England        519. 
title  "Solicitor." 


6  INTKODUCTION.  [§    6 

to  the  bar.  The  benchers  of  each  inn  decide  all  questions  relating 
to  the  fitness,  other  than  intellectual,  of  students  to  be  called, 
and  exercise  a  disciplinary  power  over  all  their  members.  They 
can  refuse  to  admit  a  person  as  student,  or  to  call  a  student  to 
the  bar.  They  can  expel  any  member,  and  can  disbar  a  barrister 
and  disbench  one  of  their  own  number.  The  property  of  each 
inn  is  vested  in  trustees,  appointed  out  of  their  number,  and  is 
managed  solely  by  the  benchers.  They,  too,  decide  on  the  amount 
of  the  fees  which  the  members  of  the  inn  have  to  pay,  and  on  the 
application  of  the  moneys  so  raised.  In  all  these  matters  they 
are  entirely  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  ordinary  courts,  but 
their  decisions  are  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  lord  chancellor  and 
the  judges  of  the  high  court  of  justice,  sitting  as  a  domestic 
tribunal.  A  barrister  must,  so  long  as  he  is  in  practice,  con- 
tinue to  be  a  member  of  an  inn  of  court."  ^^  The  King's  counsel 
are  appointed  from  among  the  barristers.^* 

§  6.  In  the  American  Colonies.  —  During  colonial  times  it 
seems  that  lawyers  were  appointed  by  the  governor  of  each  colony, 
who  usually  took  the  advice  of  the  chief  justice  of  the  supreme 
court  in  this  respect,^^  and  that  they  assumed  the  powers  and 
privileges  which  were  exercised  by  the  legal  profession  of  the 
mother  country,  and  some  of  which  that  country  did  not  apjDrove, 
is  amply  demonstrated  by  the  law  reports  of  those  times,  and  the 
history  of  our  own  country.  In  colonial  Virginia,  however,  law- 
yers were,  for  a  short  period,  forbidden  to  practice  their  profession. 
Mr.  Minor,  speaking  of  this  matter  in  his  Institutes,  says :  "Our 
colonial  ancestors  seem  to  have  cherished  bitter  prejudices  against 
professional  lawyers,  the  reasons  of  which,  if  indeed  any  existed, 
it  is  vain  at  this  distance  of  time  to  explore.  It  may  have  been 
only  the  unrestrained  exhibition  of  that  sentiment  of  jealous  dis- 
like which  is  pretty  sure  to  animate  an  aristocracy  of  birth  and 
fortune,  in  respect  to  the  opposing  aristocracy  of  capacity  and 
learning;  a  jealousy  and  dislike  which  has  many  times  flamed  out 
in  England  against  the  new  barons  and  earls  who,  by  eminence 

13  2  Halabury'H  Laws  of  England,  15  State  v.  Kirke,  12  Fla.  278,  95 
301.                                                                     An).  Dec.  314. 

14  3  m.  Com.  27,  28. 


I 


§    6]  INTRODUCTION.  7 

in  the  legal  profession,  have  been  raised  to  the  peerage."  The 
earliest  manifestation  of  suspicious  aversion  occurs  in  1642,  when 
an  act  was  passed,  "for  the  better  regulating  attorneys,  and  the 
great  fees  exacted  by  them,"  by  which  it  was  declared  that  it 
should  be  "not  lawful  to  plead  for  another  without  license  from 
the  court  where  he  pleadeth,  and  can  have  license  only  in  the 
quarter  court  (held  by  the  governor  and  council  at  the  seat  of 
government)  and  one  county  court."  In  June,  1680  (32  Car. 
II)  the  struggling  fraternity,  which  certainly  exhibited  wonder- 
ful tenacity  of  life,  again  for  a  brief  space  got  their  heads  above 
water,  as  appears  by  the  following  law:  "Whereas,  all  courts  in 
this  country  are  many  tymes  hindred,  and  troubled  in  their  ju- 
diciall  proceedings  by  the  impertinent  discourses  of  many  busy 
and  ignorant  men,  who  will  pretend  to  assist  their  friend  in  his 
busines;  and  to  cleare  the  matter  more  plainly  to  the  court,  al- 
though never  desired  nor  requested  there  unto  by  the  person 
whome  they  pretend  to  assist,  and  many  tymes  to  the  destruction 
of  his  cause,  and  to  the  great  hindrance  and  trouble  of  the 
courte,"  therefore  lawyers  shall  be  licensed  by  the  "governour." 
2  Hen.  Stats.  478.  In  1682  (34  Car.  II),  however,  they  were 
gotten  under  again:  "'Nov.  1682:  Forasmuch"  as  this  last  act  of 
1680  "is  found  inconvenient,"  it  is  repealed.  2  Hen.  Stats. 
498.  "For  thirty-six  years  after  this  apparent  extinction  of  the 
profession,  no  legislation  appears  to  have  occurred  upon  the  sub- 
ject. The  craft,  however,  seems  to  have  lived  and  flourished ;  the 
necessities  of  society  proving  more  than  a  match  for  the  stolidity 
of  the  'grand  assembly,'  so  that  that  body,  abandoning  at  leng-th 
the  vain  design  of  suppressing  it,  betook  itself  to  the  not  less  futile 
attempt  to  regulate  the  charges  of  the  profession.  Thus,  in  April, 
1718  (4  Geo.  I)  the  attorney's  fee  in  the  general  court  (formerly 
the  quarter  court  held  by  the  governor  and  council)  was  fixed  at 
fifty  shillings,  or  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco;  and  in  the 
county  court  at  fifteen  shillings,  or  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds 
of  tobacco.  4  Hen.  Stats.  59.  Thenceforward  no  further  illiber- 
ality  was  manifested  towards  the  legal  profession."  ^^ 

16  4  Minor's  Inst.  163-168.    See  also       Bar,"  by  William  Romaine  Tyree  in 
article  entitled   "The  Early  Virginia       Vol.  20   Green   Bag,   pp.   356-357.   . 


8  INTRODUCTION.  [§    "^ 

§  7.  The  Honorarium.  —  In  ancient  times,  in  every  country 
where  advocacy  was  known,  the  labor  of  the  advocate  was  looked 
upon  as  purely  honorary ;  and,  indeed,  the  pleading  of  another's 
cause  in  those  days  was,  in  all  probability,  not  much  more  than 
the  intercession  of  one  for  his  neighbor  for  which  no  compensa- 
tion was  expected.  But  as  actions  multiplied,  and  a  knowledge 
of  legal  rights  and  liabilities  became  more  difficult,  and  more 
time  and  study  were  required  to  qualify  a  citizen  to  undertake 
the  cause  of  another,  the  natural  and  inevitable  consequence  was 
that  those  who  applied  themselves  to  the  acquisition  of  the  neces- 
sary learning  employed  it  as  a  means  of  obtaining  money.  This, 
however,  was  deemed  to  be  an  abuse,  and  laws  were  enacted  which 
forbade,  restricted,  or  regulated  the  compensation  of  advocates,  or 
confined  them  to  such  honorarium,  that  is,  gift  or  gratuity,  as 
the  client  might  choose  to  give  them  voluntarily."  But  even  in 
those  early  days  some  advocates  grew  wealthy  on  their  honorari- 
ums, and  there  were  also  men  learned  in  the  law,  other  than  advo- 
cates, as,  for  instance,  the  rhetoricians  and  the  jurisconsults,  to 
whom  compensation  might  properly  be  paid.  The  only  vestige  of 
the  honorarium  now  to  be  found  is  that  which,  in  theory  at  least, 
exists  in  England,  and  to  some  extent  in  the  state  of  New  Jersey.^^ 
While  the  English  solicitor  not  only  can  claim  and  recover  com- 
pensation, but  receives  fees  Avhich  are  regulated  by  statute,  and 
taxed  in  the  cause, ^^  the  barrister  cannot  contract  for,  or  recover, 
fees  for  his  services.  He  can  only  accept  an  honorarium,  and  this 
has  always  been  so  in  England.^"  "In  the  time  of  King  Alfred  the 
barrister  was  an  employee  of  the  court,  and  it  was  his  business 
to  get  the  facts  and  explain  them  to  the  King  in  the  fewest  words. 
If  a  barrister  accepted  a  fee  from  a  man  suing  for  justice,  he  was 
disbarred.  Finally,  however,  the  practice  of  feeing,  in  order  to 
renew  the  zeal  of  the  barrister,  was  tolerated,  but  clients  had  to 
slyly  slip  all  gratuities,  as  they  were  called,  into  the  pocket  of 
the  barrister.  The  general  practice  of  paying  the  barrister,  instead 
of  the  court,  was  not  adopted  till  several  hundred  years  later, 

"  Forsyth's    Hortensius,  pp.    362,  19  Ilalsbury's  Laws  of  England,  title 

3fi3.  "Solicitor." 

H  The    'New   Jersey    rule  lias   been  28  3  ]ji.  Com.  28,  29. 

conHidcred  infra,  §  405. 


§8]  INTRODUCTION.  9 

and  it  was  then  regarded  as  an  expeditious  move  to  allay  litiga- 
tion and  punish  the  client  for  not  settling  his  own  troubles."  ^ 
So,  to  this  day,  ''the  employment  of  a  barrister  is  a  purely  hon- 
orary one  in  the  sense  that  it  confers  on  him  no  legal  right  to  remu- 
neration for  his  services ;  hence  the  remuneration  of  a  barrister  is 
called  honorarium,  as  opposed  to  merces.  .  .  .  An  express  prom- 
ise by  the  client  himself  to  pay  fees  to  counsel  for  his  advocacy, 
whether  made  before  or  during  or  after  the  litigation,  has  no 
binding  effect.  The  relation  of  counsel  and  client  renders  the 
parties  mutually  incapable  of  making  any  legal  contract  of  hiring 
and  service  concerning  advocacy  in  litigation.  The  requests  and 
promises  of  the  client  and  the  services  of  counsel  create  neither 
an  obligation  nor  an  inception  of  obligation,  nor  any  inchoate 
right  whatever  capable  of  being  completed  and  made  into  a  con- 
tract by  any  subsequent  promise."  ^  These  theories,  for  such  they 
are,  have  been  criticised  and  discarded  in  the  United  States  gen- 
erally,^ and  in  Canada.* 

S  8.  Bill  of  Privilege.  —  An  ancient  English  doctrine  extend- 

o  o  o 

cd  to  practicing  lawyers  generally,  as  officers  of  the  court,  a  privi- 
lege from  arrest  or  suit  by  ordinary  process,  and  it  was  necessary 
to  sue  them  by  bill,  usually  called  a  bill  of  privilege,  in  the  court 
wherein  they  practiced,  on  the  theory  that  they  were  always  sup- 
posed to  be  in  attendance  there,  and  that  the  business  of  the  court 
or  the  suitors  therein  would  suffer  by  counsel  being  draw^n  into  any 
court  other  than  that  in  which  their  personal  attendance  was  re- 
quired.^ Nor  could  an  attorney  waive  or  destroy  this  privilege, 
because  it  was  allowed  to  him,  not  for  his  own  sake,  but  for  the 
sake  of  the  court  and  litigants  generally,®  excepting  by  having  his 
name  stricken  from  the  roll.'  In  New  York,  though,  where  this 
procedure  was  in  effect  for  a  time,  it  w^as  held  that  the  privilege 
was  lost,  or  rather  that  it  did  not  exist,  where  an  attorney  was 

1  Scott's  Evolution  of  Law,  pp.  137,  5  3    Bl.    Com.    2S9;    Bac.    Abr.   tit. 
138.  "Privilege." 

2  2    Halsbui  y's    Laws    of    England,  6  Gardner  v.  Jessop,  2  Wils.  C.  PI. 
392.  (Eng.)    42;    Farrill  v.  Head,   Barnes 

See  also  infra,  §  401.  N.  Cas.   (Eng.)   41. 

3  See  infra,  §§  402,  404.  "^  See     Scott     v.     Van     Alstyne,     9 

4  See  infra,  §  403.  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  210. 


10 


INTRODUCTION. 


u 


sued  jointly  with  a  ^'common  person."  '  This  doctrine,  however, 
obtained  no  general  acceptance  in  the  jurisprudence  of  this  coun- 
try; it  was  recognized  to  a  limited  extent  in  a  few  states  in  the 
beginning,  but  it  soon  disappeared  entirely.^  iSTor  could  it  be  ex- 
pected that  a  privilege  of  such  nature  and  extent  could  continue 
to  exist  in  the  light  of  American  institutions.  But  out  of  the 
common-law  rule  it  has  become  firmly  established  in  our  courts 
that  "all  persons  who  have  any  relation  to  a  cause  which  calls  for 
their  attendance  in  court,  and  who  attend  in  the  course  of  that 
cause,  though  not  compelled  by  process,  are,  for  the  sake  of  public 
justice,  protected  from  arrest  in  coming  to,  attending  upon,  and 
returning  from  the  court."  ^°  ^Necessarily,  if  not  primarily,  this 
immunity  extends  to  attorneys  representing  their  clients  before  the 
court,  so  that  they  may  not  be  dra^vn  into  other  courts,  or  to  other 
business,  to  the  injury  of  suitors,  but  the  privilege  is  that  of  the 
court,  and  is  allowed  for  the  sake  of  public  justice,  not  as  an 
accommodation  to  the  individual.^^ 


8  Gay  V.  Rogers,  3  Cow.  (N,  Y.) 
368;  Chenango  Bank  v.  Root,  4  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)    126. 

9  See  Anonymous,  20  N,  J.  L.  494 ; 
In  re  Emmet,  cited  in  Godwise  v. 
Hacker,  2  Cai.  (N.  Y.)  386;  Sheldon 
V.  Gumming,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  168; 
Lawrence  v.  Warner,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
198;  Wood  v.  Gibson,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
597;  Colt  V.  Gregory,  3  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
22;  Walsh  V.  Sackrider,  7  Jolms. 
(N.  Y.)  537;  Backus  v.  Rogers,  8 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  346;  Scott  v.  Van 
Alstyne,  9  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  21G;  Webb 
V.  Cleveland,  9  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  266; 
Bridgeport  Bank  v.  Sherwood,  16 
.Johns.  (N.  Y.)  43;  Brown  v.  Cliilds, 
17  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  1;  King  v.  Burr,  20 
Johns.  (N.  Y.)  274;  Wells  v.  Cruger, 
5  Paige  (N.  Y.)  164;  Van  Alstyne  v. 
Dearborn,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  .'iSti;  llitc-h- 
cock  V.  J'.arlow,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.)   029. 

10  Tn  re  Il.'alfy.  T).'}  Vt.  694,  38  Am. 
Kcp.  Tl.'i  and  notrs  i)agf  717. 


H  United  States. — Blight  v.  Fisher, 
Pet.  (C.  C.)  41,  3  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1, 
542;  Ex  p.  Hurst,  4  Dall.  387,  12 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,924;  Parker  v. 
Hotchkiss,  1  Wall.  Jr.  (C.  C.)  269, 
18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,739;  Bridges  i;. 
Sheldon,  7  Fed.  36;  Miner  v.  Mark- 
ham,  28  Fed.  387;  Central  Trust  Co. 
V.  Milwaukee  St.  R.  Co.  74  Fed.  442. 

Massachusetts. — In  re  McNeil,  3 
Mass.  287. 

Minnesota. — Rhodes  v.  Walsh,  55 
Minn.  542,  57  N.  W.  212,  23  L.R.A.  632. 

Neio  Jersey. — Halsey  v.  Stewart,  4 
N.  J.  L.  420. 

New  York. — Brooks  v.  Patterson,  2 
Johns.  Cas.  102;  Humphrey  v.  Cum- 
mijig,  5  Wend.  90. 

Pcnnsijlrania. — Starrct's  Case,  1 
Dall.  356,  1  U.  S.   (L.  od.)    174. 

Virginia. — Com.  v.  Ronald,  4  Call 
97. 

Wisconsin. — Anderson  v.  Roun- 
tree,    1   Pin.   115. 


§§    9,  10]  INTRODUCTION.  11 

The  privileges  and  exemptions  of  attorneys  generally  will  be 
considered  later." 

Definitions  and  Distinctions. 

§  9.  Signification  of  Word  "Attorney."  —  The  word  "attor- 
ney," when  used  in  connection  with  court  proceedings,  as  well  as 
when  employed  in  a  general  sense  with  reference  to  the  transaction 
of  business  usually  and  almost  necessarily  confided  to  members  of 
the  legal  profession,  has  a  fixed  and  universal  signification  on 
which  the  technical  and  the  popular  sense  unite.  The  legislator  and 
the  judge,  the  lawyer  and  the  laymen,  understand  it  alike  as  having 
reference  to  a  class  of  persons  who  are  by  license  constituted  officers 
of  courts  of  justice,  and  who  are  empowered  to  appear,  prosecute 
and  defend  litigation  therein,  and  upon  whom  peculiar  duties, 
responsibilities  and  liabilities  are  devolved  by  law.^^  It  has  been 
said,  however,  that  the  word  "attorney"  after  the  name  of  a  prin- 
cipal does  not  of  necessity  carry  with  it  the  idea  that  the  attorney 
is  an  officer  of  the  court  or  an  attorney  at  law.^* 

§  10.  "Attorney  at  Law"  Defined.  — An  attorney  at  law  is 
one  who,  having  satisfied  the  court  as  to  his  educational  qualifica- 

12  See  infra,  §§  72-78.  Pennsylvania. — Kelly  v.  Herb,  147 

13  United    States.— In    re    Paschal,       Pa.  St.  563,  23  Atl.  889. 

10  Wall.  493,  19  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   996;  South  DaJcota.—Daniovih  v.  Egan, 

Ex  p.  Hallowell,  3  Dall.  411,  1  U.  S.  23  S.  D.  43,  20  Ann.  Cas.  418,  119  N. 

(L.  ed.)    658.  W.  1021,  139  Am.  St.  Rep.  1030. 

California.— Vittman     v.     Carsten-  Vermont.-Jie&rtt    v.    Chipman,    2 

brook,  11  Cal.  App.  224,  104  Pac.  699.  ^''^-  1^2;   Weed  Sewing  Mach.  Co.  v. 

Colorado.-Feople    v.    Erbaugh,    42  ^outelle,    56    Vt.    570,    48    Am.    Kep. 


825. 

The     terms     "attorney     ad     hoc," 

"curator   ad    hoc,"     and     "advocate," 

when  used  with  respect  to  an  absent 
La.  Ann.  /06;   Clark  v.  Morse,  16  La.        ,  ^     j      x    •    j-     i.    xi  . 

'  defendant,  indicate  the  person  named 

and  appointed  by  the  court  to  defend 
Mic%o«.— People  v.  May,  3  Mich.       ^,^^  ;„  ^he  suit  in  which  the  appoint- 


Colo.  480,  94  Pac.  349. 

Louisiana. — Ingram   v.  Richardson, 
2   La.  Ann.  839;   Dwight  v.  Weir,   6 


575. 


698. 


nient  is  made.     Bienvenu  v.  Factors' 


Oklahoma.— ^o\a.n   v.    St.   Louis   &       &  Traders'  Ins.  Co.,  33  La.  Ann.  209. 
S.    F.    R.   Co.,   19    Okla.   51,   91    Pac.  14  Hall  t;.  Sawyer,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 

1128.  116. 


12  INTRODUCTION.  [§     11 

tions  and  good  moral  character,  is  permitted  to,  and  does,  take  the 
usual  oath  of  office/^  as  a  matter  of  privilege,  and  not  as  a  matter 
of  right.^^  It  has  been  aptly  said  that  an  attorney  is  one  "set 
apart  by  the  law  to  expound  to  all  persons  who  seek  him  the  laws 
of  the  land."  "  He  is  a  necessary  part  of  the  judicial  system,  and 
he  should  sit  in  judgment  on  every  case  which  is  brought  to  him, 
and  decide  for  himself  whether  or  not  he  shall  espouse  it.^*  Per- 
sons acting  professionally  in  legal  formalities,  negotiations,  or 
proceedings  by  the  warrant  or  authority  of  their  clients  may  be 
regarded  as  attorneys  at  law  within  the  meaning  of  that  designa- 
tion as  used  in  this  country;  and  all  such,  when  they  undertake 
to  conduct  legal  controversies  or  transactions,  profess  themselves 
to  be  reasonably  well  acquainted  with  the  law  and  the  rules  and 
practice  of  the  courts.^^ 

§  11.  "Practicing  Attorney"  Defined.  —  Statutes  and  court 
rules  frequently  use  the  term  "practicing  attorney,"  and  occa- 
sionally there  is  some  discussion,  if  not  a  dispute,  as  to  its  mean- 
ing. Clearly,  a  practicing  attorney  is  an  attorney  at  law  who  is 
engaged  in  the  practice  of  his  profession,  and  who  holds  himself 
out  to  the  public  as  being  so  engaged.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a 
lawyer  should  be  ready  to  serve  all  who  may  wish  to  employ  him  in 
order  to  come  within  the  meaning  of  the  term  "practicing  attor- 
ney;" no  lawyer  is  obliged  to  do  this,  and  many  are  retained  by  one 
client  only,  others  by  a  small  number  of  clients,  or  none  at  all, 
nevertheless  they  are  practicing  attorneys  if,  in  fact,  they  hold 
themselves  out  as  such,  and  are  members  of  the  bar.     Therefore, 

15  Sample  v.  Frost,  30  la,  266.     See  l' Planter's  Bank  v.  Hornberger,  4 

also     People     v.     Ilallett,     1     Colo.  Coldw.    (Tenn.)    531. 

352;    Martine    V.    Lowenstein,    68    N.  18  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54  N.  E. 

Y.   456;    National   Press   Intelligence  646,  50  L.R.A.  519.    See  also  Dodge  t;. 

Co.  V.  Brooke,  18  Misc.  373,  41  N.  Y.  State,    140   Ind.   284,    39   N.   E.   745; 

S.   058.  State  v.  Russell,  83  Wis.  330,  53  N. 

leO'Pricn's    I'ctition,    79    Conn.   40,  W.  441. 

63  Atl.  777;   In   re  Day,   181   111.  73,  19  National  Sav.  Bank  v.  Ward,  lOO 

54   N.  E.  040,   50   E.K.A.  519;    In  re  U.  S.  195,  25  V.  S.    (L.  ed.)    621. 

Application    for    License   to    Practice  And  see  also  infra,  §§  312-315. 
Law,  07   W.  Va.  213,  67  S.  E,  597. 

And  sec  jilso  infra,  §  21. 


§    11]  INTRODUCTION.  13 

the  term  under  consideration  can  have  no  useful  signification  other 
than  to  distin^ish  between  those  who  are  engaged  in  practice,  and 
those  who  have  retired  therefrom.  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  a 
"practicing  attorney"  within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  exempting 
all  practicing  attorneys  from  jury  duty  does  not  include  a  person 
who  has  a  license  as  an  attorney,  but  who  does  not  follow  the  busi- 
ness of  practicing  law  as  his  vocation  or  calling,  although  he  may 
frequently  attend  to  suits  before  magistrates  on  matters  connected 
with  his  other  business.^"  ISTor  does  a  retired  lawyer  who  conducts 
a  suit  in  court  for  a  friend  or  neighbor,  without  fee  or  reward, 
come  within  the  meaning  of  a  statute  prohibiting  a  lawyer  from 
practicing  without  first  having  obtained  a  privilege  tax  license.^ 
Nor  is  an  attorney  who  does  not  practice  his  profession  within  the 
meaning  of  a  statute  prohibiting  attorneys  from  buying  claims 
with  the  intention  of  bringing  actions  thereon,^  or  within  the  mean- 
ing of  a  statute  prohibiting  an  attorney  from  becoming  a  surety 
upon  a  bond.^  In  these  days,  however,  the  practice  of  law  is  not 
limited  to  the  conduct  of  cases  in  courts,  but  it  embraces  the  prep- 
aration of  pleadings,  and  all  other  papers  incident  to  actions  at 
law,  suits  in  equity,  and  special  proceedings,  and  also  the  manage- 
ment of  such  actions,  suits  and  proceedings  on  behalf  of  clients 
before  judges  and  courts;  and,  in  addition  thereto,  it  includes  con- 
veyancing, the  preparation  of  legal  instruments  of  all  kinds,  and 
in  general,  all  advice  to  clients,  and  all  action  taken  for  them  in 
matters  connected  with  the  law,*  Courts  will  not  take  judicial 
notice  of  who  are  practicing  attorneys,®  and  it  has  been  held  that 
an  allegation  that  one  is  a  "practitioner"  in  all  the  courts  of  the 
state  does  not  show  that  he  has  a  legal  right  so  to  practice.^ 

20VVheatley      v.      State,      11      Lea  4  in   re  Duncan,   83   S.   C.    186,   18 

(Tenn.)   262.  Ann.  Cas.  657,  65  S.  E.  211,  24  L.R.A. 

iMcCargo  v.   State,    (Miss.)    1   So.  (N.S.)    750. 

161.  5  Cothren  v.  Connaughton,  24  Wis. 

2  Thompson  r.  Stiles.  44  Misc.  334,  134. 

89  N.  Y.  S.  876.  6  Withers  v.  State,  36  Ala.  252. 

3  Evans    r.    Harris,    47    Super.    Ct. 
(N.  Y.)    366;    Stringham  f.  Stewart, 

8  Civ.  Pro.    (X.  Y.)    420. 


14  INTRODUCTION.  [§§    12,  13 

§  12.  Compared  with  Other  Vocations.  —  An  attorney  at 
law  is  a  special  agent  limited  in  dnty  and  authority  to  the  vigilant 
prosecution  or  defense  of  the  rights  of  his  client.  But  his  authori- 
ty to  enter  into  bargains  or  contracts  binding  on  his  client,  unless 
expressly  conferred,  is  confined  within  the  limits  of  that  profes- 
sional action  which  may  be  necessary  for  the  conduct  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  course  of  pending  suits,  and  of  direction  to  minis- 
terial officers  in  the  issue,  levy,  and  return  of  executions  on  judg- 
ments which  he  may  have  obtained.  He  is  invested  with  a  large 
discretionary  power  in  anything  pertaining  to  the  collection  of 
demands  intrusted  to  him  for  that  purpose ;  and  Avhile  he  cannot 
discharge  a  debt  or  an  execution  without  receiving  satisfaction,  he 
has  control  of  the  selection  of  legal  remedies  and  processes  which 
he  may  deem  most  effectual  in  accomplishing  his  object.  The  con- 
fidence reposed  in  him  by  his  client,  and  the  supposed  ignorance 
of  the  latter  as  to  the  most  appropriate  remedies,  require  this.' 
It  has  also  been  held  that  an  attorney  is  an  employee  or  laborer 
within  the  meaning  of  an  order  appointing  a  receiver  for  a  rail- 
road company,  and  directing  him  to  pay  debts  owing  to  the 
laborers  and  employees  of  the  company  for  labor  and  services 
actually  done  in  connection  with  the  company's  railways.^  But 
an  attorney  is  not  a  "clerk,  servant,  or  employee"  within  the 
meaning  of  a  statute  which  entitles  such  persons  to  priority  of 
payment  for  services  over  other  creditors  of  an  insolvent  corpora- 
tion in  the  hands  of  a  receiver.^ 

§  13.  Attorney  as  Officer  of  Court.  — Attorneys  are  offi- 
cers of  the  (courts  wherein  they  are  admitted  to  practice,^"  and,  as 
such,  are  accorded  certain  privileges  for  the  benefit  of  the  general 

7  Robinson  r.  Miiipliy,  G9  Ala.  .'543;  8  Gurney   v.    Atlantic,   etc.,   R.    Co. 

Shattuciv  r.  IJill,   14:2  Mass.  5G,  7  N.  58  N.  Y.  358. 

E.  39;    Dongiass   r.   Folsom,   21   Nev.  9  Lewis  v.  Fisher,  80   Md.   139,   30 

44],   33   Pac.   (iliO:    Hickor'a   Petition,  Atl.   608,    45    Am.    St.    Rep.    327,    26 

06  N.  II.  207,  -'ii   All.  .)59,  24  L.R.A.  L.R.A.  278. 

740.     See  also  Uick  v.  Stidc,  107  INU.  ^0  United   States. — Ex    p.    Garland, 

21,  68  Atl.  286,  .-)7(i.  4   Wall.  333,  ]8  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    366; 

Tlic  general  authority  of  attorneys  In    re    Wall,    ]3    Fed.    814;    Treat   v. 

at    law    is    considered    infra,    §§    199-  Tolnian,    113    Fed.    892,    51    C.    C.    A. 

283.  522;    in    re    AlcxaiKJcr,    19;!    Fed.    749. 


§  13] 


INTRODUCTION. 


15 


public,  not  for  their  own  advantage.  By  approved  practice,  and 
ex  necessitate,  an  attorney  at  law  is  clothed  in  some  measure  with 
the  court's  power.  For  instance,  his  engagement  in  a  case  gives 
him  the  right  to  command  the  court's  processes  of  summons  and 
subpoena,  and  the  court's  officers  are  at  his  call  to  execute  his  will 
in  behalf  of  his  client  for  many  purposes.  His  retainer  gives  him 
the  ear  of  the  court,  and  also  affords  him  the  court's  protection 
against  a  refractory  client.  He  is  the  only  proper  vehicle  of  com- 
munication between  the  court  and  his  client,  and  upon  him  the 
court  must  rely  for  the  performance  of  many  intimate  and  respon- 
sible duties.  These  and  other  considerations  suggest  that  to  call 
him  an  officer  of  the  court  is  by  no  means  a  figure  of  speech. ^^  He 
is  also  bound  to  respect  and  obey  the  court,  and  to  aid  it  in  the  due 
administration  of  justice,  and  for  the  failure  so  to  do,  or  for  any 


California. — Clark  v.  Willett,  35 
Cal.   534. 

Colorado. — People  f.  Hallett,  1 
Colo.  352. 

Connecticut. — In  re  Durant,  80 
Conn.  140,  10  Ann.  Cas.  539,  G7  Atl. 
497. 

Illinois.— In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54 
N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

Indiana. — Heffren  v.  Jayne,  39  Ind. 
463,  13  Am.  Rep.  281. 

Kansas. — In  re  Pryor,  18  Kan.  72, 
26  xA^m.  Rep.  747;  Hanson  v,  Grattan, 
84  Kan.  843,  115  Pac.  646,  34  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)    240. 

Michigan. — Williams  v.  West  Bay 
City,  119  Mich.  395,  78  N.  W.  328; 
In  re  Mains,  121  Mich.  603,  30  N.  W. 
714. 

'New  Jersey. — In  re  Young,  75  N.  J. 
L.  83,  67  Atl.  717. 

'New  York. — In  re  Burchard,  27 
Hun  429;  Matter  of  Baum,  55  Hun 
611  mem.,  8  N.  Y.  S.  771;  Matter 
of  Manheim,  113  App,  Div.  136,  99 
N.  Y.  S.  87;  In  re  Wood,  2  Cow.  29 
note  b,  Hopk.  6;  Hall  v.  Sawyer,  47 


Barb.  116;  Neele  V.  Berryhill,  4  How. 
Pr.  16;  Close  V.  Gillespey,  3  Johns. 
526. 

Oklahoma. — Nolan  v.  St.  Louis, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Okla.  51,  91  Pac. 
1128. 

Pennsylvania. — In  re  Austin,  5 
Rawle  191,  28  Am.  Dec.  657;  Dan- 
ville, etc.,  R.  Co.  c.  Rhodes,  180  Pa. 
St.  157,  36  Atl.  648;  In  re  Murray's 
Estate,  13  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  70;  Com,  v. 
Branthoover,  24  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  353, 

South  Carolina. — State  v.  Holding, 
1  McCord  L.  379. 

Texas. — Hark  ins  v.  Murphy,  51  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  568,  112  S.  W.  136. 

Utah. — Morrison  v.  Snow,  26  Utah 
247,  72  Pac.  924. 

West  Virginia. — State  v.  Hans- 
ford, 43  W.  Va.  773,  28  S.  E.  791. 

"Wisconsin. — Vernon  County  Bar 
Assoc.  V.  McKibbin,  153  Wis.  350,  141 
N.  W.  283. 

Attorneys  are  not  officers  of  courts 
not  of  record.  In  re  Hunt,  Tuck. 
(N.  Y.)    55. 

11  In  re  Thatcher,  190  Fed.  969. 


16 


INTRODUCTION. 


[§  14 


other  misconduct  which  renders  him  unworthy  to  occupy  his  office, 
his  license  may  be  revoked/^ 

§  14.  As  Public  Officer. — It  has  been  held  that  an  attorney 
at  law  is  a  public  officer  appointed  by  the  court  to  perform  certain 
public  duties,  and  vested  with  such  power  and  authority  as  are 
necessary  for  the  due  performance  thereof. ^^  It  is  only  in  this 
limited  sense,  however,  that  an  attorney  can  be  classified  as  a 
public  officer,  for  he  is  not  a  public  official  in  the  ordinary,  nor  in 
the  strict,  signification  of  that  term.^*  It  has  been  held,  for  in- 
stance, that  the  vocation  of  a  member  of  the  bar,  as  an  attorney 
and  an  officer  of  the  court,  is  not  a  public  office  within  the  com- 
mon-law rule  which  excludes  women  from  government  by  withhold- 
ing electoral  and  official  power,  nor  does  that  rule  prevent  women 
from  being  licensed  to  practice  as  attorneys.^*  So,  it  has  been 
decided  that  an  attorney  at  law  could  not  be  compelled,  as  a  condi- 
tion precedent  to  his  admission  to  the  bar,  to  take  an  anti-duelling 
oath,  although  it  was  required  by  statute  that  all  persons  holding 
''an  office  or  public  trust"  should  take  such  an  oath;  ^^  and  a  like 


12  See  infra,  §§  756-761. 

13  In  re  Shay,  133  App.  Div.  547, 
118  N.  Y.  S.  146;  In  re  Spencer,  137 
App.  Div.  330,  122  N.  Y,  S.  190; 
In  re  Rothschild,  140  App.  Div.  583, 
125  N.  Y,  S.  629.  See  also  Waters  v. 
Whittemore,  22  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  593; 
Wood's  Case,  2  Covr.  (N.  Y.)  29  note 
b;  Wallis  v.  Loubat,  2  Den.  (N.  Y.) 
607;  In  re  Wood,  1  Hopk.  (N.  Y.)  7; 
Kichardson  v.  Brooklyn  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  22  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  368;  Merritt 
V.  Lambert,  10  Paige   (N.  Y.)    352. 

1*  United  States. — E.k  p.  Garland,  4 
Wall.  333,  18  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   366. 

Alabama. — In  re  Dorsey,  7  Port. 
293. 

Califryrnia. — Cohen  v.  Wright,  22 
Cal.  293;  Ex  p.  Yale,  24  Cal.  241,  85 
Am.  Dec.  62. 

(Irrrrfjia. — Ex  p.  Law,  35  Ga.  288, 
15  Fed.  Caa.  No.  8,126. 


Williams,    31    Tex. 
W.   580,  21   L.R.A. 


Massachusetts. — In  re  Robinson, 
131  Mass.  376,  41  Am.  Rep.  239. 

Michigan. — Hester  v.  Park,  etc., 
Com'rs,  84  Mich.  450,  47  N.  W.  1097. 

New  York. — In  re  Burchard,  27 
Hun  429,  explaining  Seymour  v.  Elli- 
son, 2  Cow.  13. 

South  Carolina. — Byrne  v.  Stewart, 
3  Desaus.  466. 

Texas. — Ex  p. 
Crim.  272,  20  S. 
783. 

Virginia.  —  Bland,  etc..  County 
Judge  Case,  33  Gratt.  443;  In  re 
Leigh,  1  Munf.  468. 

And  sec  the  following  section. 

15  In  re  Thomas,  16  Colo.  44],  2T 
Pac.  707,  13  L.R.A.  538;  In  re  Ricker, 
66  N.  H.  207,  29  Atl.  559,  24  L.R.A. 
740. 

See  also  infra,  §§  36-40. 

16  Matter    of    Attorney's    Oath,    20 


§§    15,  16]  INTRODUCTION.  17 

conclusion  was  arrived  at  with  reference  to  certain  requirements 
as  to  the  taking  of  the  ''test  oaths,"  ^"^ 

§  15.  As  Constitutional  and  Judicial  Officer.  —  An  attorney 
at  law  does  not  come  within  the  meaning  of  the  term  ''public  offi- 
cer" as  used  in  the  federal  and  state  constitutions ;  ^*  nor  is  the  act 
of  admitting  an  applicant  to  the  bar  an  appointment  to  office  with- 
in the  meaning  of  a  constitutional  provision  prohibiting  judges 
from  exercising  the  power  of  appointment  to  office. ^^  And  it  has 
also  been  held  that  an  attorney  is  not  a  judicial  officer.^" 

§  16.  "Attorneys  at  Law"  and  "Counselors"  Distinguished. 

—  The  ancient  distinctions  Avhich  prevailed  in  England  between 
the  various  grades  of  legal  practitioners  have  long  since  been  abol- 
ished, and  there  remains  now  but  the  advocate  or  court  lawyer, 
and  the  solicitor  or  office  lawyer.^  So,  in  this  country  the  distinc- 
tion between  attorneys  and  counselors  disappeared,  for  practical 
purposes  at  least,  at  a  very  early  period,  and  these  terms  are  now 
used  interchangeably.^  In  some  instances  it  has  been  found  con- 
venient to  refer  to  associate  attorneys  as  "of  counsel"  so  as  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  "attorneys  of  record"  in  a  cause ;  ^  and  in 
some  jurisdictions  a  purely  arbitrary  distinction  is  made  as  be- 
tween proceedings  at  law  or  in  equity ;  thus  when  a  member  of 
the  bar  signs  a  common-law  pleading,  he  does  so  as  attorney,  while 

Johns.  (N.  Y.)  492;  Byrne  t;.  Stewart,  How.  Pr.   1,   reversing  31   Barb.   353, 

3   Desaus.    (S.   C.)    466;    Ingersoll   v.  10  Abb.  Pr.  348,  19  How.  Pr.  97;  In 

Howard,    1    Heisk.    (Tenn.)    247;    In  re   Graduates,    11   Abb.   Pr.    (N.   Y.) 

re   Leigh,    1    Munf.    (Va.)    468.     See  301. 

also  Ex  p.  Faulkner,   1  W.  Va.  269;  20  Matter    of    Baum,    55    Hun    611 

Ex  p.  Quarrier,  4  W.  Va.  210.  mem.,  8  N.  Y.  S.  771. 
And  see  infra,  §  55.  l  See  supra,  §§  4,  5. 

"Ex   p.   Faulkner,   1   W.   Va.  269.  2  in   re   Pasclial.    10   Wall.   483,   19 

See  also  w/ra,  §  56.  U.    S.    (L.   ed.)    992;    Law   r.    Ewell, 

18  Ex  p.  Williams,  31  Tex.  Crim.  2  Cranch.  (C.  C.)  144.  15  Fed.  Cas. 
262,  20  S.  W.  580,  21  L.R.A.  783.  No.  8,127;  Pittman  r.  Carstcnbrook, 
See  also  Ex  p.  Garland,  4  Wall.  333,  11  Cal.  App.  224,  104  Pac.  699;  Al- 
378,  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  366:  In  re  lentown  v.  Light,  15  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 
Bland  &  Giles  County  Judge,  33  Grat.  619:  Ingrahara  r.  Leland,  19  Vt.  304. 
(Va.)    443.  3  State  r.  Russell,  83  Wis.  330,  53 

19  In    re    Cooper,    22    N.   Y.    67,    20  N.  W.  441. 

Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 2. 


18  INTRODUCTION.  [§§    17,  18 

he  signs  a  pleading  in  equity  as  solicitor;  bnt  this  distinction 
arises  merely  from  the  mode  of  proceeding,*  and  not  from  any 
difference  in  the  grade,  power,  or  authority  of  the  practitioner  in 
either  case.  In  Ncav  Jersey,  however,  while  the  same  person  maj^ 
be,  and  usually  is,  both  counselor  and  attorney,  some  theoretical 
distinction  is  still  maintained.* 

§  17.  "Lawyer"  Defined. —  The  word  "lawyer,"  as  used  in 
this  country,  means  an  attorney  at  law;  and  in  England  and 
Canada  it  embraces  both  branches  of  the  legal  profession,  that  is, 
barristers  and  solicitors,  although  each  of  these  branches,  in  so  far 
as  their  powers  and  duties  are  concerned,  differs  widely  from  the 
other.  They  are  in  fact,  as  in  name,  distinct  callings,  governed 
by  distinct  rules,  and  subject  to  different  considerations.  Xor  are 
the  qualities  necessary  for  success  in  each  by  any  means  the  same ; 
for  it  is  well  known  that  a  man  may  be  a  good  solicitor  although 
he  would  make  but  an  indifferent  barrister,  and  vice  versa} 

§  18.  "Client"  Defined.  — A  client  is  one  who  retains  a  mem- 
ber of  the  bar  to  advise  him  in  relation  to  his  rights,  duties  or 
liabilities  under  the  law ;  or  to  transact  a  matter  of  legal  business. 
or  business  in  the  nature  thereof,  for  him ;  or  to  manage,  or  assist 
in  the  management  of,  his  litigation.'^  To  become  a  client  there 
must  be  an  employment  of  the  attorney,'  although  it  is  not 
essential  that  a  fee  be  either  paid  or  promised,®  for  the  law  will 
imply  a  promise  to  pay  for  services  rendered  upon  request,  or  the 
benefits  of  which  have  been  knowingly  accepted.^"  Whether  or  not 
one  is  a  client,  or  in  other  words,  whether  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  has  been  established,  is  of  considerable  importance  in 
some  respects ;  for  instance,  an  attorney  cannot  of  his  own  accord 
divulge  information  communicated  to  him  in  confidence  by  a 
client   nor  will  lie  bo  permitted  to  do  so  without  liis  client's  consent 

4Stinsc)n    r.    Ilildnip,    8    Biss.    :57<i,  7  McCroary  r.  lloopos.  2.j  Miss.  428. 

1?,    Fed.   Cas.   No.    13,459;    Allentowii  8  What  constitutes   an   employment 

/■.  I/if:lit,  15  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  010.  will  be  considered  infra,  §§  507-522. 

6  Sec  injra,  §  405.  9  See  infra ,  §    lOi). 

6  .M'l)oiif,'all    V.   Campbell,   41    U.   C.  10  See  infra,  §§  447-440. 

(t.   B.  W.Vl. 


§§    19.  20]  IXTRODUCTION.  19 

or  waivcr.^^  So,  the  existence  of  the  professional  relationship  is  of 
importance  in  determining  the  validity  of  dealings  between  the 
attorney  and  his  client, ^^  or  whethei-  an  attorney  has  acquired 
interests  adverse  to  those  of  his  client/^ 

§  19.  "Attorney  in  Fact"  Defined.  —  An  attorney  in  fact  is 
one  who  is  appointed  by  another  to  act  in  his  place  and  stead  for 
the  purpose  of  doing  some  particular  act,  or  transacting  a  particu- 
lar matter  of  business.  All  attorneys  in  fact  are  merely  agents 
appointed  by  a  writing  which  specifies  their  powers,  and  beyond 
which  they  cannot  go.^*  Such  a  writing  is  known  as  a  "power  of 
attorney,"  and  it  can  confer  on  the  appointee  a  right  to  do  only 
those  things  which  might  law^fully  have  been  done  by  the  person 
making  the  appointment.  But  one  cannot  empower  another,  not 
a  member  of  the  bar,  to  manage  his  litigation  in  court.^^  An 
attorney  in  fact  may  or  may  not  be  also  a  member  of  the  bar,  but 
private  persons  are  usually  appointed  for  this  purpose,  and  are 
sometimes  called  "private  attorneys"  to  distinguish  them  from 
attorneys  at  law.  Furthermore,  a  lawyer  may,  without  a  formal 
appointment,  do  such  a  variety  of  acts  in  behalf  of  his  client  ^^ 
that  his  appointment  by  power  of  attorney  becomes  necessary  only 
where  the  act  to  be  performed  is  one  which  does  not  fall  within  the 
scope  of  his  official  authority,  as,  for  instance,  the  execution  and 
acknowledgment  of  written  instruments  such  as  deeds,  mortgages, 
releases,  and  contracts ;  or  the  cancelation  thereof. ■^''^ 

§  20.  "Attorney  of  Record"  Defined.  —  The  phrase  "attor- 
ney of  record,"  though  of  some  practical  importance,  has  never 
been    judicially    defined.      The    attorney    of    record    is    that    at- 

11  See  infra,  §§  101.  107.  And  as  51  C.  C.  A.  522;  Porter  v.  Hermaiiii, 
to  privileged  communications  general-  8  Cal.  619;  White  V.  Furgeson,  29 
ly  see  infra,  §§  92-132.  Ind.  App.  144,  64  N.  E.  49;   Hall  v. 

12  See    infra,    §     153.     And    as    to  Sawyer,  47   Barb.    (N.  Y.)    116. 
dealings  between  attorney  and  client  15  See  infra,  §  25. 

generally  see  infra,  §§  152-163.  16  As  to  the  authority  of  attorneys 

13  See  infra,  §  172.  And  as  to  the  at  law  generally  see  infra,  §§  199- 
acquisition   of   adverse   interests   gen-       283. 

erally  see  infra,  §§   164-173.  17  See  infra,  §§   199-202. 

14  Treat   v.   Tolman,   113   Fed.   892, 


20  INTRODUCTION.  [§    20 

toruey  who,  by  appearance,  or  by  signature  of  process  or 
pleadings,  stands  upon  the  record  of  the  court  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  party  litigant.  In  the  absence  of  litigation 
there  can  be  no  attorney  of  record.^*  By  virtue  of  his  ap- 
pearance of  record  he  is  ordinarily  deemed  the  only  authorized 
representative  of  the  litigant  and  where  a  statute  requires  that 
notices  be  signed  by  ^^  or  served  on  the  "attorney"  of  a  party,  the 
attorney  of  record  is  intended.^"  The  substitution  of  attorneys  on 
the  record,^  th.e  employment  of  associate  attorneys  by  the  attorney 
of  record,^  and  the  relative  rights  of  attorneys  of  record  and  asso- 
ciate attorneys  to  a  lien,^  are  considered  in  subsequent  chapters. 


18  Wilson  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  Mo.   588,    18   S.   W.  286,  32   Am.   St. 
108  Mo.  588,   18  S.  W.  286,   32  Am.  Rep.  624. 

St.  Rep.  624.  l  See  infra,  §  143  et  seq. 

19  Prescott  V.  Salthouse,  53  Cal.  221.  2  See  infra,  §  516. 

20  Whittle  V.  Renner,  55  Cal.  395;  3  See  infra,  §§  585,  586. 
Wilson  V.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  108 


CHAPTER  II. 

ADMISSION  TO  PRACTICE. 

Necessity  of  Admission. 

21.  Generally. 

22.  Admission  for  Particular  Business  or  Case. 

23.  Compensation  as  Depending  on  Admission. 

24.  Party  Prosecuting  or  Defending  for  Himself. 

25.  Eepresentation  by  Agent. 

26.  Statutory   Provision*^   For'oidding   Unlicensed    Practice. 

27.  Practice  in  Courts  Not  of  Record. 

Jurisdiction  and  Regulation, 

28.  Whether  Judicial  or  Legislative  Function. 

29.  Statutory    Regulation. 

Eligibility  Generally, 

.30.  Age. 

31.  Citizenship. 

32.  Residence. 

33.  Race. 

34.  Moral   Character. 

35.  Eligibility  of  Corporations. 

EU(iihiUt\i  of  ^yomen. 

36.  Present  Status. 

37.  At  Common  Law. 

38.  Right  to  Admission  under  Federal  Constitution  and  Statutes. 

39.  Legal  Arguments  for  and  against  Admission. 

40.  Nonlegal  Arguments  for  and  against  Admission. 

Education. 

41.  Cleneral  Education. 

42.  Purpose  of  Statutory  Requirements. 

43.  Indiana  Constitutional  Provision. 

44.  Study  in  Law  School. 

45.  Study  in  Law  Office. 

21 


22  ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE.  [g    21 

Exaniination. 

§  46.  Necessity  of  Examination. 

47.  Who  Conducts  Examinations. 

48.  Examining  Boards. 

40.  Examination  of  Eaw  School  Graduates. 
.50.  Character  of  Examination. 

51.  Percentage  Required  to  Pass. 

52.  Personal  Presence  of  Applicant. 

Bcqiiirciiiciit.^  Subsequent  to  Examination. 

53.  Application  for  Admis-sion. 

54.  Oath  of  Office. 

55.  Duelling  Oath. 
5G.  Test  Oaths. 

57.  Enrollment  or  Registration. 

58.  Order  Admitting  Applicant- Conclusiveness  Thereof —Review. 

Admission  of  Attorneys  of  Other  Jurisdictions. 

59.  Admission  of  Attorneys  from  Other  States. 

60.  Admission   of  Attorneys   from   Foreign   Covmtries. 

Objections. 

m.  Objections  to  Admission. 

62.  Sufficiency   of  Evidence   against   Applicant. 

Necpssify  of  Ad)ni.ssio7i. 

§  21.   Generally.  — Tho  n'oht  to  practice  law  is  not  a  natural 

iiihcrciil  I'i^^lit.^  hnt  niic  which  may  be  exercised  only  upon  proof 
of  fitncsi--.  iliidiiiili  (•\i(h'iice  of  the  possession  of  satisfactory  les^al 
attiiiniiif'Mts  iiikI  f;iii-  chariU'ter.^     Tho  privilege  of  jivacticing  law 

1  Colnii   /■.   Wiiuiit,  -ll  Cal.  :!07:   in  2|„    ,-('    Diirniit.    SO    Conn.    140,    10 

n-    ihiraiit.    ,S()    Conn.    140.    10    Ann.  Ann.  Cas.  530.  07  Atl.  500;  Matter  of 

(as.  530,  07   Atl.  .500;    Tn   ro  Taylor.  Co-operative  Law  (o.,  108  N.  Y.  479,  ID 

48   :Md.  28,   30   Am.   Rep.  451;    In   re  Ann.  Cas.  882.  02  \.  E.  15,  139  Am. 

Maddox,  93  Md.  727,  50  Atl.  487,  55  St.  Rep.  8.39.  32   L.R.A.(N.S.)    55. 

I..R.A.  298;  State  Bar  Commission  r.  So    rnrly    ms    the    statute    4    TIenry 

SnlJivan.  35  Okla.  745.   131    I'ac  7n;! ;  l\',    c     IS,    it    was    enacted    that    aC- 

Tliorn   r.  T„a\vson,   0  Tex.   240;    In   re  tonieys    should    lie    cxiniiined    by    tlic 

.\|)I)]icii(ion    for    License    to    Practice  judges,    and    none   admitted    but    such 

L:iw,  07   W  .   \a.  213.  07  S.   1''.  597.  as  \ver(>   virtuous,   learned,  and  sv\nrn 


!1] 


ADMISSIOIV    TO    PKACTICE. 


23 


is  not  open  to  all,  but  is  a  special  personal  franchise  limited  to 
persons  of  good  moral  character,  with  special  (iiialitications  ascer- 
tained and  certified  after  stndy  and  examinatidii.^  It  is  not 
"property"  within  the  meaning-  of  the  word  as  used  in  constitu- 
tions; *  nor  is  it  a  contract.^  When  admitted  to  practice,  however, 
an  attorney  at  law  becomes  an  officer  of  the  court;  ^  and,  as  sucli. 
he  is  entitled  to  certain  rights  and  privileges,  and  sul)ject  to  cer- 
tain duties  and  liabilities,  the  due  observance  of  which  is  necessary 
for  the  faithful  administration  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  in 
order  that  justice  may  be  done.  Thus  counsel  may  hold  them- 
selves out  to  the  public  for  compensation  as  competent  advisers 
as  to  wdiat  the  law  is,  what  it  means,  and  what  procedure  shall  l)e 
adopted  to  eftect  certain  lawful  ends.  The  abilit}',  integrity,  and 
wisdom  displayed  in  such  nndertakings  necessarily  affect,  and  to 
a  large  extent,  not  only  the  due  enforcement  of  the  law,  but  the 
people  themselves  in  their  relations  with  one  another.  For  these 
reasons  the  office  of  an  attorney  at  law  has  been,  ever  since  its 
existence,  subject  to  the  supervision  of  the  courts.  From  the 
earliest  times  it  has  been  required  that  counsel,  by  whatever  name 
they  were  known,  should  possess  certain  qualifications  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  their  admission  to  practice.'     The  inalienable  right 


to  do  tlietr  duty.  And  many  siibsc- 
qnent  statutes  have  laid  them  under 
fartluT  regulations.     3  Bl.  Com.  20. 

Xeii-  York. — ''A  citizen  of  the  state, 
of  full  age,  applying  to  be  admitted 
to  practice  as  an  attorney  or  counsel- 
or in  the  courts  of  record  of  the  state, 
must  be  examined  and  licensed  to 
practice  as  prescribed  in  this  cha]i- 
ter."  Sec.  460,  Judiciary  Law,  Con- 
sol.  Laws  of  Xew  York. 

3  Buxton  /•.  Lietx,  136  N.  Y.  S.  82!t : 
Matter  of  Co-operative  Law  Co.,  198 
K.  Y.  479,  19  Ann.  Cas.  882,  92  N.  E. 
]5,  139  Am.  St.  Rep.  839,  32  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)   .5.i. 

4  Bosque  r.  U.  S.,  209  U.  S.  91,  28 
S.  Ct.  501,  52  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  698;  Co- 
hen V.  Wright,  22  Cal.  307. 

5  Cohen  r.  Wris'ht.  22  Cal.  307. 


6  See  §  13. 

7  Cobb  r.  Judge,  43  Mich.  289,  5  X. 

W.  309:  McKoan  r.  Devries,  3  Barb. 
(X.  Y.)  196;  Spicer's  Will,  Tuck, 
(X.  Y.)    80;  Thorn  v.  Lawson.  G  Tex. 

240;     Harkins     r.    Murphy,    ol    Tex. 

Civ.  A;ip.  568,  112  S.  W.  130. 

Li  any  consideration  of  tl'.e  ques- 
tion it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  re- 
strictions upon  the  privilege  of  prac- 
ticing law  are  created  only  m  tlie 
interest  of  the  public  welfare,  and 
neither  for  nor  against  the  student. 
No  one  who  has  commenced  prepara- 
tion has  any  inchoate  right  on  ac- 
count of  that  fact,  but  is  bound  to 
furnish  the  test  of  fit::ess  required 
when  he  r.sks  to  enter  upon  the  prac- 
tice. In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54  X. 
E.  G46,  50  L.R.A.  519. 


24 


ADMISSIOlSr    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  22 


of  every  American  citizen  to  follow  any  of  the  common  industrial 
occupations  of  life  does  not  extend  to  the  pursuit  of  professions  or 
avocations  of  such  a  nature  as  to  require  peculiar  skill  or  super- 
vision for  the  public  welfare.* 

§  22.  Admission  for  Particular  Business  or  Case.  —  In  the 

absence  of  statutory  authority  to  the  contrary,  it  is  the  general 
practice  of  courts  of  record  in  the  several  states  to  permit  gentle- 
men of  the  bar  in  other  states  to  appear  as  counsel  on  the  trial  or 
argument  of  causes,^  as  a  matter  of  comity.'^"  Thus  practitioners 
in  state  courts  may  be  permitted  to  try,  or  argue,  a  particular  case, 
or  attend  to  other  specific  legal  business,  in  the  federal  courts.^^ 
In  some  jurisdictions  a  "special  admission"  is  provided  for  by 
statute  or  rule  of  court.'^^  Indeed  counsel  from  sister  states  are 
sometimes  allowed  to  assist  prosecuting  attorneys  in  the  trial  of 
criminals,^^  but  in  some  jurisdictions  such  assistance  is  prohibited 
by  statute.^*  The  general  admission  of  attorneys  who  are  duly 
licensed  to  practice  in  sister  states  will  be  considered  hereafter.^^ 


8  In  re  O'Brion,  70  Conn.  46,  63  Ail. 
777. 

9  Chappell  r.  Real  Estate  Pooling 
Co.,  89  Md.  258,  261,  42  Atl.  936;  In 
re  Mosness,  39  Wis.  509,  20  Am.  Rep. 
55.  See  also  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73, 
96,  54  N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

10  Matter  of  Mock,  146  Cal.  .378,  80 
Pac.  64;  Manning  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  122  X.  C.  824,  28  S.  E.  963,  per 
Clark,  J.  See  also  In  re  Admission  to 
the  Bar,  61  Xeb.  58,  84  X.  W.  611. 

"See  Harland  i'.  Lilientlial,  53  X. 
Y.  438:  Harrington  ;•.  Edwards,  17 
Wis.    586,    84    Am.    Dec.    768. 

12  In  re  Robinson,  82  Xeb.  172,  17 
Ann.  Cas.  878,  117  X.  W.  352. 

The  Colorado  statute  provides: 
"Whenever  any  coiiiisclor  at  law  re- 
siding in  any  of  the  adiaccnt  states 
or  territories  may  liavc  any  business 
in  iiii\-  of  tlic  courts  of  tliis  state,  he 


may  be  admitted,  on  motion,  for  the 
purpose  of  transacting  such  busines  ■ 
and  none  other."    Mills's  Annot.  Col 
Stat.   (1891),  §  209. 

New  York. — Rule  2  of  tlie  rules  1 1 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at 
law  provides:  "An  attorney  and 
counselor  from  another  state  or  for- 
eign jurisdiction  may  in  the  discre- 
tion of  any  court  of  record  be  admit- 
ted pro  hoc  vice  to  participate  in  the 
trial  or  argument  of  any  cause  in 
which  he  may  be  employed." 

13  State  /'.Kent,  4  X.  D.  577,  62 
X.   W.  631,  27  L.R.A.  686. 

And  see  §  701. 

14  State  v.  Russell,  83  Wis.  330,  53 
X.  W.  441. 

And  see  sj  701. 

15  See  §  59. 


§  23] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


25 


§  23.  Compensation     as     Depending     on     Admission.  — 

The  right  to  recover  compensation  for  services  rendered  in  the 
capacity  of  an  attorney  or  counselor  at  law  is  confined  to  those 
persons  who  were  duly  admitted  and  entitled  to  practice  as  such 
in  the  courts  ^^  at  the  time  the  services  were  rendered/'^  and  who 
were  then  in  good  standing.^*  This  is  especially  true  as  to  services 
rendered  in  violation  of  a  statute  prohibiting  unlicensed  persons 
from  practicing  law/^  though  an  attorney  may  recover  for  legal 


iSHittson  V.  Browne,  3  Colo.  304; 
Bachman  v.  O'Reilly,  14  Colo.  433,  24 
Pac.  546;  Tedrick  v.  Hiner,  61  111. 
189;  Ames  V.  Gilnian,  10  Met.  (Mass.) 
239;  Perkins  v.  MeDuffee,  63  Me.  181. 

Since  a  corporation  cannot  be  a 
member  of  the  bar  (In  re  Co-opera- 
tive Law  Co.,  198  N.  Y.  479,  19  Ann. 
Cas.  879,  92  N.  E.  15,  139  Am.  St. 
Rep.  839,  32  L.R.A.(N.S.)  55),  it 
cannot  recover  for  its  legal  services 
in  the  collection  of  a  claim.  Hughes 
V.  Dougherty,  62  111.  App.  464. 

17  Matter  of  Fellows,  3  111.  369; 
Ames  v.  Oilman,  10  Met.  (Mass.) 
239. 

^^  Effect  of  Disbarment. — Where  an 
attorney  was  employed  to  prosecute 
a  claim  before  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment of  the  United  States  for  one- 
half  the  sum  he  might  recover,  and, 
after  filing  the  papers,  etc.,  was  dis- 
barred from  further  practice  in  the 
department,  it  was  held  that  the  at- 
torney having  become  incapable  of 
prosecuting  the  claim,  the  considera- 
tion of  the  client's  promise  of 
remuneration  failed,  and  the  client 
having,  as  he  had  a  right  to 
do,  thereupon  revoked  his  author- 
ity, the  attorney  had  no  right 
upon  the  revocation  of  the  order 
of  disbarment  to  resume  his  services 
in  the  case,  and  his  only  right  of  re- 
covery against  the  client  for  services 


was  for  beneficial  services  rendered 
before  his  disbarment,  and  the  burden 
was  upon  him  to  prove  such  services. 
Moyers  v.  Graham,  15  Lea  (Tenn.) 
57. 

See  also  §  503. 

19  In  re  Horton,  8  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.) 
434;  Hittson  v.  Browne,  3  Colo.  304; 
Bachman  r.  O'Reilly,  14  Colo.  433,  23 
Pac.  789;  Robb  v.  Smith,  4  111.  47; 
Tedrick  v.  Hiner,  61  111.  189;  East 
St.  Louis  r.  Freels,  17  111.  App.  339; 
Sellers  v.  Phillips,  37  111.  App.  74. 

"In  general,  when  the  law  pro- 
hibits an  act,  no  one  can  have  the  aid 
of  the  law  to  recover  compensation 
for  doing  it."  Ames  v.  Oilman,  10 
Met.    (Mass.)    239. 

Obviously  this  principle  would  pre- 
vent recovery  by  an  attorney  for 
services  in  violation  of  a  statute  for- 
bidding him  to  practice  in  any  court 
of  which  he  is  a  clerk  or  a  judge. 
See  Evans  v.  Funk,  151  111.  650,  38 
N.  E.  230. 

The  Colorado  statute  provides  that 
"if  any  person  not  licensed  as  afore- 
said shall  receive  any  money  or 
species  of  property  as  a  fee  or  com- 
pensation for  services  rendered  by 
liim  as  an  attorney  or  counselor  at 
law  within  this  state  all  money  so 
received  by  him  sliall  be  considered 
as  money  received  to  tlie  use  of  the 
person  paying  the  same,  and  may  be 


26 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  23 


services  rendered  after  he  has  been  admitted  to  practice,  even  if 
he  contracted  to  perform  such  services  before  being  admitted.^'* 
A  law  partnership  is  likewise  disabled  from  recovery  if  one  of 
the  partners  is  an  unlicensed  person.^  But  in  the  absence  of  stat- 
utory regulation  to  the  contrary,^  it  seems  that  an  attorney  need 


recovered  back  with  costs  of  suit,  by 
ail  action  for  money  had  and  received 
and  tlie  person  receiving  snch 
money  or  property  shall  forfeit  three- 
fold the  amount  of  value  tliereof.'' 
Hittson  /'.  Browne,  3  Colo.  304. 

In  Maine  it  has  been  provided  by 
statute  that  no  person  commencing 
practice  as  an  attorney  or  counselor 
at  law  in  any  other  state  or  place, 
or  in  any  court  in  that  state,  without 
the  qualifications,  oaths,  and  pay- 
ment of  the  duty  specified  in  the  stat- 
ute, shall  be  entitled  to  demand  or 
receive  any  remuneration  for  profes- 
sional services.  Perkins  i'.  McDuf- 
fee,  63  Me.  181. 

In  yew  York  under  Penal  Law 
(Consol.  Laws  1909,  c.  40),  §  270, 
providing  that  any  person  not  duly 
licensed  to  practice  law  who  holds 
himself  out  as  an  attorney  and  coun- 
selor at  law,  or  who  attempts  to 
practice  law,  is  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, a  contract  for  services  or 
commissions  made  with  an  individual 
engaged  in  the  business  of  a  mer- 
cantile agency  for  collection  of  ac- 
counts on  behalf  of  clients  and  insti- 
tuting suits  for  that  purpose  when 
necessary  is  illegal  and  unenforce- 
able. Diixton  r.  Lietz,  13(1  N.  Y.  S. 
8-29. 

20  (;„|,l,.MlMTg  r.  Law.  (\.  .\r.)  131 
Pac.  4!»9. 

1  liitt.xtii  /■.  i'.rowiie,  3  (^)1(>.  :!(I4. 
wlier(;in  the  court  said:  "In  tlic  case 
of  llarlaiid  /•.  LilienliiMl,  .")3  \.  Y. 
4J0,    in    wiiicli    ih.'   .■oiirt    held    tlial    a 


law  firm,  one  member  of  which  had 
been  duly  licensed,  may  recover  in  a 
joint  action  for  services  rendered  by 
the  firm,  there  was  the  absence  of  a 
prohibitory  statute.  The  remarks  of 
the  court,  that  if  there  had  been  a 
prohibitory  statute  or  a  rule  of  court 
forbidding  an  unlicensed  attorney  to 
practice,  the  fact  that  one  member  of 
the  firm  had  been  duly  admitted 
would  relieve  from  its  eff'ect,  were 
entirely  extrajudicial." 

However,  in  Harland  r.  Lilienthal, 
53  N.  Y.  438,  above  cited,  the  court 
said:  "The  English  authorities  are, 
that  though  there  be  a  prohibition 
upon  the  recovery  for  professional 
services,  unless  there  lias  been  a  form- 
al admission  to  practice  the  profes- 
sion, yet  that  two  partners,  one  only 
of  whom  had  complied  with  the  stat- 
ute, might  recover  in  a  joint  action 
for  such  services  rendered  by  them. 
Arden  r.  Tucker,  4  B.  &  Ad.  815,  24 
E.  C.  L.  171;  Turner  r.  Reynall,  14 
('.  B.  N.  S.  328,  108  E.  C.  L.  328." 

2  Under  the  old  statute  of  Maf<sa- 
cliusettfi  a  person  could  not  lawfully 
I)ractice  as  an  attorney  in  any  court 
of  justice  within  the  state  who  was 
not  admitted  as  an  attorne,y  conform- 
ably to  that  statute,  although  he  was 
regularly  admitted  an  attorney  in  the 
courts  of  another  state,  and  after- 
wards removed  into  ^Fassachusetts 
and  permanently  resided  there.  Sucli 
jx-rson  therefore  could  not  recover 
coniix'iisatidn  for  services  rendered  as 
an   attcnnt'V    in   tlie  courts  of    Massa- 


2-i] 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


27 


not  be  admitted  to  practice  in  the  particular  court  in  which  the 
services  were  rendered.^  So,  also,  an  unlicensed  person  may 
recover  for  such  services  as  may  lawfully  be  rendered  by  one  who 
is  not,  as  well  as  by  one  who  is,  an  attorney  at  law.* 

§  24.  Party  Prosecuting  or  Defending  for  Himself.  — 
Constitutional  or  statutory  provisions  invariably  authorize  a  per- 
son to  appear  and  conduct  his  own  cause,  as  plaintiff  or  defend- 
ant ;  ^  and  unless  otherwise  provided  by  statute,  as,  for  instance, 
it  is  in  New  York,®  it  is  immaterial  that  the  litigant  has  engaged 
counsel  to  appear  for  him,'  or  that  he  has  been  disbarred  from 


clui setts  prior  to  1836,  when  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  took  effect,  altering 
the  rules  as  to  the  right  of  attorneys. 
Ames  f.  Gihnan,  10  :Met.  239. 

3  In  Harland  r.  Lilienthal,  53  N. 
Y.  438,  it  appears  that  the  plaintifl"s. 
attorneys  duly  admitted  to  practice 
in  several  courts,  were  retained  by 
the  defendant  to  defend  an  action  in 
the  United  States  District  Court. 
One  of  the  plaintiffs  was  properly  ad- 
mitted to  practice  therein;  the  other 
plaintiff,  though  entitled  to  be  so  ad- 
mitted, and  practicing  therein  with- 
out objection,  had  never  been  formal- 
ly admitted.  In  an  action  by  the 
plaintiffs  for  fees  for  services  render- 
ed in  the  suit  in  the  United  States 
District  Court,  it  was  held  that  the 
defendant  could  not  set  up  the  fact 
tliat  one  of  the  plaintiffs  was  not 
formally  admitted,  and  that  having 
bargained  for  and  received  the  plain- 
tiff's services,  he  should  pay  therefor, 
in  tlie  absence  of  a  statute  or  rule  of 
court  preventing  a  recovery. 

4  Bird  r.  Breedlove,  24  Ga.  623; 
Dunlap  r.  U^bus,  112  Ky.  237,  65  S. 
W.  441. 

See  §  69  as  to  what  constitutes  un- 
L;v.  till  practice  of  law. 


5  Hightower  v.  Hawthorn,  Hempst. 
42,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6,478b;  May  r. 
Williams,  17  Ala.  23;  Funded  Debt 
Com'rs  r.  Younger,  29  Cal.  147,  87 
Am.  Dec.  164;  Gregson  r.  Allen,  85 
Til.  478:  Aukam  v.  Zantzinger,  94  Md. 
421,  51  Atl.  93;  In  re  Flannery,  150 
App.  Div.  369,  135  N.  Y.  S.  612; 
Rader  v.  Snyder,  3  W.  Va.  413. 

Section  35  of  the  Judiciary  Act  ( 1 
Stat.  L.  92)  provides:  "In  all  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  the  par- 
ties may  plead  and  manage  their  own 
causes  personally,  or  by  the  assistance 
of  such  counsel  or  attorneys  at  law 
as  by  the  rules  of  the  said  courts  re- 
spectively shall  be  permitted  to  man- 
age and  conduct  causes  therein." 
Nightingale  v.  Oregon  Cent.  R.  Co., 
2  Sauy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,264. 

6  In  New  Y'^ork,  under  see.  55,  Code 
Civ.  Pro.,  "if  a  party  has  an  at- 
torney in  the  action,  he  cannot  ap- 
pear to  act  in  person,  where  an  at- 
torney may  appear  or  act  either  by 
special  provision  of  law,  or  by  the 
course  and  practice  of  the  court."  See 
also  Halsey  v.  Carter,  6  Robt.  (N.  Y.) 
535. 

VBolan  V.  Egan,  2  Brev.  (S.  C.) 
426. 


28 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  25 


practicing  as  an  attorney  at  law,'  But  provisions  of  the  character 
under  discussion  are  not  to  be  extended  beyond  their  purpose ; 
thus  it  has  been  held  that  they  do  not  authorize,  as  against  a  pro- 
hibitory statute,  a  director  of  a  bank  to  appear  as  its  attorney.' 
In  Canada  an  unlicensed  person,  although  he  have  a  substantial 
interest  in  the  subject-matter  of  a  litigation,  cannot  "practice"  as 
a  solicitor.'^" 

§  25.  Representation  by  Agent.  —  One  who  has  not  been 
admitted  as  an  attorney  cannot  practice  as  such  by  attempting  to 
act  as  his  client's  agent.''^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  a  constitu- 
tional provision  that  a  suitor  shall  have  the  right  to  prosecute  or 
defend  his  suit  "by  an  attorney  or  agent  of  his  choice,"  does  not 
authorize  him  to  do  so  by  a  person  not  licensed  to  practice,  or  by  a 
disbarred  attorney. ^^  And  where  a  state  constitution  provided 
that  any  male  citizen,  twenty-one  years  old,  etc.,  "shall  be  entitled 
to  admission  to  practice"  law,  a  statute,  subsequently  enacted, 
which  provided  that  "any  person  of  good  moral  character,  although 
not  admitted  as  an  attorney,  may  manage,  prosecute,  or  defend  a 


sphilbrook  V.  Superior  Ct.,  Ill  Cal. 
31,  43  Pac.  402. 

9  West  Feliciana  R.  Co.  f.  Johnson, 
5  How.   (Miss.)  273. 

10  In  re  Clark,  32  Ont.  237. 

11  Nightingale  v.  Oregon  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  2  Sawy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,264;  Cobb  r.  Judge,  43  Mich.  289, 
5  N.  W.  309;  Weir  r.  Slocum,  3  How. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  397,  1  Code  Rep.  105; 
Harkins  v.  ^Murphy,  51  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
508,   112   S.  W.   136. 

12  Cobb  r.  Judge,  43  :Mich.  289,  5 
N.  W.  309,  wlierein  Marston,  C.  J., 
said:  "If  the  word  'agent'  as  used 
in  tlie  constitution  is  not  to  be  con- 
strued as  synonymous  with  the  word 
'attorney,'  what  is  to  be  the  result? 
Parties  may  appear  by  agents  posses- 
Hing  no  h'L'al  qualification  or  even 
ordinary  intelligence,  and  of  tin- 
worst    j)OHHil)le    cliiiractcr :    they    may 


be  minors,  and  may  even  ho  persons 
who  have  been  disbarred  and  re- 
moved by  this  court  from  practicing 
as  attorneys  and  solicitors.  They 
could  not  practice  as  attorneys,  pos- 
sessing neither  the  legal  nor  moral 
qualifications  for  such  a  position,  and 
yet  they  could  appear  as  agents. 
They  would  possess  the  rights  of  at- 
torneys but  not  be  subject  to  the  re- 
sponsibilities: their  removal  by  the 
court,  if  they  could  be  removed,  would 
be  a  mere  idle  ceremony.  Litigants 
might  again  employ  them  and  author- 
ize them  to  appear  and  represent 
their  interests,  so  that  persons  who 
could  not  practice  as  attorneys  could 
as  agents,  with  equal  rights  and  pow- 
ers. Such  could  not  have  been  the  in- 
tention of  the  franiers  of  our  funda- 
mental law,  or  of  the  people  in  adopt- 
ing it." 


§  25] 


ADMISSIOiSr    TO    PKACTICE. 


29 


suit  for  any  other  person,  provided  he  is  specially  authorized  for 
that  purpose  by  the  person  for  whom  he  appears,  in  writing,  or  by 
personal  nomination  in  open  court,"  was  declared  to  be  unconsti- 
tutional, since  it  purported  to  authorize  a  person  to  practice  even 
though  he  did  not  possess  all  the  qualifications  specified  in  the 
constitution.^^  So,  also,  where  a  statute  required  a  pleading  to  be 
filed  by  the  plaintiff  or  his  attorney,  it  was  held  that  an  attorney  at 
law,  and  not  an  attorney  in  fact,  was  intended.^*  Though  the 
statute  unequivocally  gives  the  right  to  appear  by  agent  the  court 
in  recognizing  such  right  will  give  no  countenance  to  unqualified 
persons  who  seek  to  engage  generally  in  the  practice  of  the  law.'^* 


13  McKoan  v.  Devries,  3  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)  196;  Bullard  v.  Van  Tassell, 
3  How.  Pr.   (X.  Y.)   402. 

14  Kelly  V.  Herb,  147  Pa.  St.  503, 
23  Atl.  889. 

15  "Tlie  statute  of  February  17, 
1791,  enacts  'that  the  plaintiff  or  de- 
fendant in  any  cause,  prosecution  or 
suit,  being  a  citizen  of  this  state,  may 
appear,  plead,  pursue  or  defend,  in 
his  proper  person,  or  by  such  other 
citizen  of  this  state,  being  of  good 
and  reputable  character  and  behavior, 
as  lie  may  engage  and  employ,  wheth- 
er the  person  so  employed  be  admit- 
ted as  an  attorney  at  law  or  not.' 
This  statute  gives  in  express  terms 
to  every  citizen  of  this  state  the  right 
to  have  his  cause  managed  by  any 
person  of  good  moral  character  whom 
he  may  see  fit  to  employ ;  and  we 
think  this  right  includes,  as  a  neces- 
sary incident  without  which  it  cannot 
be  safely  enjoyed,  the  right  to  in- 
struct those  who  may  be  thus  em- 
ployed and  to  have  the  trust  and  con- 
fidence thus  reposed  preserved  in- 
violate in  all  cases.  But  while  we 
are  disposed  to  give  to  every 
citizen    the     full     enjoyment     of    all 


iiis  rights  in  this  respect,  we  are 
not  willing  to  give  any  countenance 
to  those  who,  without  the  necessary 
qualifications,  undertake  to  advise 
as  counsel  and  to  commence  suits  in 
their  neighborhood.  It  has  been  sup- 
posed that  the  members  of  the  bar 
were  opposed  to  the  interference  of 
such  persons  in  such  matters,  because 
it  might  tend  to  injure  tlie  business 
of  the  profession.  But  nothing  can  be 
further  from  the  truth  than  such  a  sup- 
position. ^Vhen  those  wlio  are  not 
qualified  to  act  as  counsel  engage  in  the 
practice  of  the  law,  their  blunders  are 
much  more  likely  to  increase,  than 
their  interference  to  diminish,  the 
business  and  emoluments  of  the  pro- 
fession. No,  it  is  from  much  better, 
much  higher,  much  more  honorable 
motives,  that  the  bar  withhold  all 
countenance  from  ignorant  obtruders. 
It  is  to  preserve  to  the  administration 
of  justice  some  degree  of  order  and 
regularity,  and  some  degree  of  purity, 
that  they  do  this ;  and  this  case  is  a 
strong  illustration  of  the  soundness 
and  utility  of  the  principle  upon 
which  they  act."  Bean  v.  Quimby,  5 
N.   H.   94. 


30  ADMISSIO^r    TO    PRACTICE.  [§§    26,  27 

§  26.  Statutory  Provisions  Forbidding  Unlicensed  Prac- 
tice.—  Til  nearly  evprv  jurisdiction  statutes  which  forl)iJ  un- 
licensed ])ersons  to  "practice"  law  have  been  enacted  ;  and  it  is 
usually  provided  that  a  violation  of  such  statutes  may  be  ])unislied 
either  as  a  misdemeanor,  or  a  contempt  of  court,  or  both.  "*'  nv 
of  the  statutes  also  specify  various  acts  which  shall  constitute 
unlawful  practice  or  representation  of  authority  to  practice.  These 
enactments,  of  course,  furnish  an  additional,  and  to  some  a 
potent,  reason  why  admission  to  the  bar  must  be  had  before  one 
may  practice  as  an  attorney.  This  subject  will  be  considered 
more  fully  later.^^ 

§  27.  Practice  in  Courts  Not  of  Record.  — Statutes  prohib- 
iting the  practice  of  law  by  unlicensed  persons  are  quite  often  lim- 
ited in  terms  to  practice  in  courts  of  record,  and  occasionally  prac- 
tice in  justices'  courts  or  in  a  county  court  is  expressly  excepted 
from  the  prohibition.  A  widespread  custom,  which  no  doubt  pre- 
vailed in  the  colonial  period,  sanctions  practice  before  justices  of 
the  peace,  or  in  other  courts  of  that  grade,  by  persons  who  are  not 
members  of  the  bar.^'  In  Illinois  a  litigant  before  a  justice  of 
the  peace  can  employ  any  person  he  may  choose  to  conduct  his  cause 
in  that  tribunal,  but  the  person  thus  employed,  unless  he  is  a  regu- 
larly licensed  attorney,  is  only  an  agent. ^®  In  some  states  it  has 
been  held  to  be  within  the  discretion  of  a  justice  to  admit  an  un- 
licensed attorney  to  practice  before  him.^^  This  matter  is.  of 
course,  subject  to  statutory  regulation ;  thus  in  New  York  only 
licensed  attorneys  can  practice  in  cities  of  first  and  second  class.^° 

16  See  §  G9.  20  New   York   Code   Civ.   Pro.   §   63 

17  Hall  r.  Sawyer,  47  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  provides:  "A  person  shall  not  ask 
116;  Bailey  v.  Delaplaine,  1  Sandf.  or  receive,  directly  or  indirectly,  com- 
( N.  Y.)  11;  Hughes  V.  Miilvey,  1  pensation  for  a])pearing  as  attorney  in 
Sandf.  (N.  Y.)  92;  Porter  v.  Bronson,  a  court  or  before  any  magistrate  in 
29  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  292,  19  Abb.  any  city  of  the  first  or  second  class,  or 
I'r.  2.30  (Marine  Court).  make  it  a  business  to  practice  as  an 

18  McLaughlin  v.  Oilmore,  1  111.  attorney  in  a  court  or  before  a  mag- 
App.  .56.'{.  istrate  in  any  city  of  tlie  first  or  sec- 

19  McVVIiorter  v.  Bloom,  .3  N.  J.  L.  ond  class,  unless  he  has  been  regularly 
545;  Pierson  V.  Foster,  3  N.  J.  L.  admitted  to  practice,  as  an  attorney 
540.  or  counselor,  in  the  courts  of  record 


§   28] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


31 


Wliile  iu  Tennessee  practice  before  justices  is  specially  provided 
fur.^ 


Jurhdiction   and  llcguJai'ton. 

§  28.  Whether  Judicial  or  Legislative  Function. —  It  is  un- 
doubtedly true  that  the  power  to  admit  one  to  practice  as  an  at- 
torney at  law  is  a  judicial  function.  It  is  a  power  inherent  in 
the  court,^  which  is  to  be  exercised  by  a  sound  judicial 
discretion.^  Nor  is  this  power  restricted  by  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution.*  Early  in 
the   national   jurisprudence   it   was   held   that   the   power   to    ad- 


of  tlie  state,  but  nothing  in  this  act 
shall  be  held  to  applj-  to  officers  of 
societies  for  the  prevention  of  cruel- 
ty, duly  appointed,  when  exercising 
the  special  powers  conferred  upon 
sucli  corporations  under  article  six  of 
the   Membership   Corporations   Law." 

1  In  Tennessee  it  is  provided  that 
"any  one  over  tlie  age  of  twenty-one 
years,  and  of  good  standing,  shall  be 
entitled  to  practice  law  as  an  at- 
torney, or  act  as  counsel  for  any  per- 
son or  persons  in  all  causes  arising 
or  coming  before  any  justice  of  the 
peace  in  this  state,  and  before  the 
County  Court  of  his  county."  Code 
of  Tennessee  Annot.  ( Shannon  1 896 ) 
§   5773. 

2  United  States. — Ex  p.  Secombe, 
39  How.  9,  15  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  565;  In 
re  Garland,  4  Wall.  333,  syllabus  6, 
18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  366:  In  re  Thatcher, 
]90  Fed.  969. 

Illinois.— In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54 
X.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

hnJiana. — Garrigus  r.  State,  93 
Ind.  242. 

Massachusetts. — See  Manning  v. 
French,  149  Mass.  391,  21  N.  E.  945, 
4  L.R.A.  339. 

rennsijlvania. — Breckenridge's  Case, 


1  S.  &  R.  187;  In  re  Splane,  123  Pa. 
St.  527,  16  Atl.  481,  23  W.  N.  C.  154. 

West  Virginia. — Walker  v.  State, 
4  W.  Va.  749,  753;  State  v.  Mc- 
Claugherty,  33  W.  Va.  250,  10  S.  E. 
407;  State  v.  Shumate,  48  W.  Va. 
359,  37  S.  E.  618:  State  r.  Stiles,  48 
W.  Va.  425,  37  S.  E.  620:  State  v. 
Hays,  64  W.  Va.  45,  61  S.  E.  355 ;  In 
re  Application  for  License  to  Prac- 
tice Law,  67  W.  Va.  213,  67  S.  E. 
597. 

Wisconsin. — In  re  Goodell,  39  Wis. 
232,  20  Am.  Rep.  42;  In  re  Mosness, 
39  Wis.  509.  20  Am.  Rep.  55. 

The  history  of  the  exercise  of  such 
power  in  England,  while  interesting, 
is  of  little  benefit  in  determining 
whether  the  power  is  one  projierly  be- 
longing to  courts  or  to  the  legislature. 
The  difference  in  the  principles  un- 
derlying the  systems  of  government 
is  such  as  to  render  a  conclusion  in- 
applicable, even  if  it  should  be  found 
that  Parliament  had  exercised  such 
power.  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54  N. 
E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

3  In  re  Egan,  24  S.  D.  301,  123  X. 
W.  478. 

4  In  re  O'Brien,  79  Conn.  46,  63  Atl. 
777. 


32 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


[§  28 


mit  and  remove  was  the  exclusive  province  of  a  federal  court. ^ 
And  this  ruling  has  been  consistently  maintained.^  Where  a  state 
constitution  lodges  the  judicial  power  exclusively  in  the  courts,  as 
a  co-ordinate  department  of  government,  the  legislature  will  not 
be  permitted  to  encroach  upon  the  judicial  powers  by  assuming 
to  make  admission  to  the  bar  a  legislative  function ;  '  in  the  absence 
of  constitutional  restriction,  however,  the  power  to  admit  attorneys 
at  law  is  subject  to  legislative  regulation.^  In  ISTew  Jersey  at- 
torneys at  law  are  not  appointed,  licensed,  or  admitted  to  practice 


5  Ex  p.  Burr,  2  Cranch  (C.  C.)  379, 
4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,186;  mandamus  re- 
fused by  Supreme  Court,  9  Wheat. 
529,  6  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    152. 

6  Ex  p.  Secombe,  19  How.  13,  15  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  565,  in  which  case  the 
chief  justice  said:  "It  has  been  well 
settled  by  the  rules  and  practice  of 
common-law  courts  tliat  it  rests  ex- 
clusively with  the  court  to  determine 
who  is  qualified  to  become  one  of  its 
officers,  as  an  attorney  and  counselor, 
and  for  what  cause  he  ought  to  be 
removed.  The  power,  however,  is  not 
an  arbitrary  and  despotic  one,  to  be 
exercised  at  the  pleasure  of  the  court, 
or  from  passion,  prejudice,  or  person- 
al hostility;  but  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  court  to  exercise  and  regulate  it 
by  a  sound  and  just  judicial  discre- 
tion, whereby  the  rights  and  inde- 
pendence of  the  bar  may  be  as  scrupu- 
lously guarded  and  maintained  by  the 
court  as  the  rights  and  dignity  of  the 
court  itself." 

This  case  has  been  repeatedly  fol- 
lowed liy  federal  coiiits,  tin-  su])reme 
court  cases  being  Ex  p.  Carland,  4 
Wall.  3.33,  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  366;  Ex 
p.  F.radley.  7  Wall.  373,  377,  19  V. 
S.  (I.,  ed.i  214;  Itiindall  r.  Brigham, 
7  Wall.  523,  535,  10  I '.  S.  (1..  ed.) 
285;  Bradley  r.  Fisher,  ll!  Wall.  :;:i.">, 
20    r.    S.    (I.,    ed.)    (;4(i;     Iv\    p.    Wall. 


107  U.  S.  265,  281,  28.5,  2  S.  Ct.  569, 
27  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)  552. 

7  In  re  Branch,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57 
Atl.  431  ;  In  re  Splane,  123  Pa.  St. 
527,  16  Atl.  481,  23  W.  N.  C.  154. 

8  In  re  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  67,  20  How. 
Pr.  1,  11  Abb.  Pr.  301,  reversing  19 
How.  Pr.  97,  10  Abb.  Pr.  .348,  31 
Barb.  353 ;  In  re  Applicants  for  Li- 
cense to  Practice  Law,  143  N.  C.  1,  10 
Ann.  Cas.  187,  55  S.  E.  635,  10  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  288. 

"The  manner  of  regulating  the  ad- 
mission of  persons  to  practice  law  is 
the  subject  of  legislative  action  and 
control.  At  common  law  the  courts 
had  no  power  to  admit  attorneys  or 
counselors.  Their  duties  are  of  such 
character  that,  in  order  to  secure 
proper  qualification  for  their  dis- 
charge, the  legislature  imposes  the 
duty  of  examination  and  determina- 
tion upon  the  courts.  The  only  dif- 
ference between  this  pursuit  and  that 
of  any  other  for  which  a  liccmse  is 
not  required  is  that  a  qiuilification 
looking  to  competency  is  required  in 
one,  and  the  right,  independent  of 
(liialilication,  is  in  the  other.  Because 
ilic  law  jirescribes  certain  methods  by 
wliicli  the  existence  of  the  qualifica- 
tion to  follow  a  pursuit  is  determined, 
:iii(l,  after  determining  their  exis- 
tence,  a   general    authority    to    follow 


§  29] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICK. 


33 


bj  any  branch  of  the  judicial  department  of  the  state.  They  are 
invested  with  that  privilege  by  letters-patent,  issued  under  the 
great  seal  of  the  state  by  its  chief  executive,  upon  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  court  based  upon  an  examination  of  the  applicant.^ 

§  29.  Statutory  Regulation.  —  The  judicial  function  which 
is  exercised  in  the  act  of  admitting  an  attorney  at  law  to  practice  is 
not  to  be,  as  it  sometimes  is,  confused  with  the  right  to  make 
reasonable  regulations  concerning  such  admissions.  In  the  absence 
of  constitutional  authority  to  the  contrary,  the  legislature  undoubt- 
edly has  the  right  to  regulate  the  practice  of  law,  as  well  as  other 
professions  and  occupations  the  regulation  of  which  is  for  the 
public  welfare.'^"  The  legislature  may  regulate  admission  to  the 
bar  by  prescribing  a  standard  therefor ;  and  where  the  conditions 
of  eligibility  are  reasonable,  the  court  must  give  full  effect  to  the 
statute,  and  want  of  a  statutory  condition  necessitates  the  refusal 
to  license  one  to  practice.''^  Thus  the  legislature  may  piescribe 
the  qualifications  which  shall  be  necessary  in  order  that  an  attor- 
ney may  be  entitled  to  admission/^  may  provide  for  the  examina- 


sucli  pursuit  is  granted,  gives  no 
greater  right  to  follow  that  pursuit 
than  exists  in  any  citizen  to  follow 
any  other  legitimate  calling  or  avoca- 
tion." Accordingly  the  state  has  the 
pame  right  to  tax  the  business  of  an 
attorney  by  way  of  license  fees  that  it 
has  to  tax  any  other  business.  Young 
r.  Thomas,  17  Fla.  169,  173,  35  Am. 
Rep.  93. 

Within  Police  Power. — In  In  re 
Applicants  for  License,  143  N.  C. 
5,  10  Ann.  Cas.  187,  55  S.  E.  635, 
10  L.R.A.(]Sr.S.)  288,  the  court  said: 
"It  is  well  cstablisliod  and  sus- 
tained by  the  weight  of  authority  that 
the  legislature  has  the  right  to  es- 
tablish the  qualifications  to  be  re- 
quired of  one  to  become  a  practicing 
member  of  the  bar.  .  .  .  The  right 
to  establish  such  qualifications  rests 
in  tlie  police  power — a  power  by  vir- 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 3. 


tue  of  which  a  state  is  authorized  to 
enact  laws  to  preserve  the  public  safe- 
ty, maintain  the  public  peace  and 
order,  and  preserve  and  promote  the 
public  health  and  public  morals." 

9  In  re  Branch,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57 
Atl.  431. 

10  Ex  parte  Secombe,  19  How.  9, 
15  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  565;  Cohen  v. 
Wright,  22  Cal.  293;  Ex  p.  Yale,  24 
Cal.  241,  85  Am.  Dec.  62;  In  re  Day, 
181  111.  73,  54  N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A. 
519;  In  re  Leach,  134  Ind.  665,  34 
X.  E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701;  In  re 
Goodell,  39  Wis.  232,  20  Am.  Rep. 
42. 

11  Vernon  County  Bar  Assoc,  r.  Mc- 
Kibbin,  153  Wis.  350,  141  N.  W.  283. 
And  see  In  re  Thatcher,  190  Fed.  969. 

l2Bradwell  r.  Illinois,  16  Wall. 
130,  21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  442:  In  re 
Lockwood,    154    U.   S.   116,    14    S.    Ct. 


34 


ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE. 


u 


8    •?«» 


tion  of  applicants/'  may  designate  the  conrts  which  shall  have 
power  to  admit  such  applicants,  and  the  like."  So,  also,  it  has 
been  held  that  a  statnte  providing  that  admission  to  practice  in  the 
Snpreme  Conrt  of  a  state  shall  operate  as  an  admission  as  an  attor- 
ney at  law  in  every  other  conrt  of  that  state,  withont  any  other  or 
further  action  by  snch  other  conrts  or  by  the  attorney,  is  merely  a 
declaration  of  the  effect  to  be  given  to  a  pnrely  jndicial  act  of  the 
Snpreme  Conrt  in  directing  the  admission  of  an  attorney  at  law  to 
practice  before  it,  and  is  not  nnconstitntional.^^  All  snch  laws  mnst, 
of  conrse,  as  well  as  other  enactments,  refrain  from  offending 
against  the  constitntion ;  ^^  and,  as  shown  in  the  preceding  section, 
the  extent  to  which  statntory  regulation  may  go  will  be  rather 
restricted  where,  under  the  constitution,  the  jndicial  department  of 
the  government  has  such  exclusive  authority,  as  a  co-ordinate  gov- 


1082,  38  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  929:  In  ro 
Day,  181  111.  73,  54  X.  E.  (i4(),  50 
L.R.A.  519;  In  re  Leach,  134  Ind. 
665.  34  X.  E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701;  In 
re  Taylor,  48  Md.  28,  30  Am.  Rep. 
451:  In  re  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  67.  20 
llow.  Pr.  1,  11  Abb.  Pr.  301,  reversing 
]9  How.  Pr.  97,  10  Abb.  Pr.  348,  31 
Barb.  353;  In  re  Yamashita,  30  Wash. 
234,  70  Pac.  482,  94  Am.  St.  Rep. 
8()0.  59  L.R.A.  671  :  State  V.  Rossman, 
53  Wash.  3.  17  Ann.  Cas.  625,  101 
i'ac.  357.  21  L.R.A.  (N.S.)  821;  Ver- 
H(in  Cdi'iily  I'ar  Assoc,  r.  McKibbin, 
153  \\i«.   350,    141    N.   W.  283. 

In  Matter  of  Graduates,  11  Abb. 
Pr.  (N.  Y.)  332,  the  court  said:  "In 
this  state  it  seems  that  attorneys, 
|iii()i-  tu  the  itcNolution,  were  appoint- 
ii|  liy  Ihc  ;.M)\('rii()r  of  the  colony. 
People  r.  .(nsticcs.  1  .Johns,  ('as.  1S2. 
liy  the  cfxistitiition  of  1777  tlie  pow- 
er of  a[ipointin^  this  class  of  odicers 
was  vested  directly  in  the  conrts;  but 
the  constitution  of  1882  was  silent 
upon  the  sui)ject,  tlius  leavinji;  the 
matter  in  the  direction  and  control  of 
llic     le;_'ishituri',     wiiicli,    at     i(s     next 


session,  passed  an  act  requiring  at- 
torneys to  be  licensed  by  the  courts 
in  which  they  should  respectively 
practice.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
although  the  appointment  of  at- 
torneys has  usually  been  intrusted  in 
this  state  to  the  courts,  it  has  been, 
nevertheless,  both  here  and  in  Eng- 
land, uniformly  treated  not  as  a  nec- 
essary or  inherent  part  of  their 
judicial  power,  but  as  wholly  subject 
to  legislative  action." 

13  In  re  Admission  to  Bar,  61  ?seb. 
58.  84  \.  W.  611. 

14  In  re  Hovey,  (Cal.)  80  Pac.  234; 
in  re  Admission  to  Bar,  61  Neb.  58, 
84  N.  W.  611  :  Nolan  r.  St.  Louis,  etc., 
R.  Co..  19  Okla.  51,  91  Pac.  1128.  See 
also  In  re  l)rcwcr.  3  llow.  Pr.   (N.  VT. ) 

I  (•>!». 

isih.opes  r.  P.radshaw.  231  Pa.  St. 
485.  80   Atl.   1098. 

16  State  r.  Ilocker,  39  Fla.  477,  22 
So.  721,  63  Am.  St.  Rep.  174;  Mc- 
Koan  r.  Devrics.  3  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  19(1. 
See  also  In  re  Mosness,  39  Wis.  509, 
20    Am.    Kei>.    55. 


§   '30] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


onuiiontal  department,  that  interference  therewith  on  the  part  of 
the  legishiture  is  prohibited.  So,  also,  laws  of  this  character  must 
be  general  in  their  operation."  No  doubt  the  legislature,  in  fram- 
ing an  enactment,  may  classify  persons  so  long  as  the  law  estab- 
lishing classes  is  general,  and  has  some  reasonable  relation  to  the 
end  sought ;  ^*  but  there  must  be  some  difference  which  furnishes  a 
reasonable  basis  for  different  legislation  as  to  the  different  classes, 
and  not  a  purely  arbitrary  one,  having  no  just  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject of  the  legislation.^^  The  legislature  cannot  limit  the  courts  in 
their  right  to  determine  the  moral  qualifications  of  attorneys  or 
prevent  them  from  refusing  to  admit  morally  unfit  persons  to  the 
practice  of  law.*^" 

Eligih'dity   Generally. 

§  30.  Age. — Almost  invariably  the  statutes  require  that  an 
applicant  for  adirission  to  the  bar  shall  have  attained  the  age  of 
twenty-one  yeai-s.^  Nor  will  the  applications  of  minors,  made  with 
a  view  to  their  admission  to  the  bar  u])on  attaining  their  majority, 
be  acted  upon.^  And  even  in  the  absence  of  any  legislation  on  the 
subject,  it  is  highly  probable  that  courts  would  decline  to  license 
minors.^     In  Arkansas  and  Florida  the  statutes  regulating  admis- 


17  In  re  Day.  18]  111.  73,  54  X.  E. 
04(1,  50  L.K.A.  519. 

18  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54  N.  E. 
(14(),  50  L.R.A.  519.  See  also  In  ro 
Taylor,  48  Md.  28,  30  Am.  Rep.  451. 

And  see  §  33. 

19  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73.  54  X.  E. 
G4n,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

20  In  re  Platz,  (Utah)  132  Pac.  390. 
1  Ex    p.   Coleman,   54   Ark.  235,    15 

S.  W.  470;    In  re  Admission  to  Bar, 
61  Xeb.  58,  84  X.  W.  611. 

£  In  In  re  Admission  to  the  Bar,  61 
Xeb.  58,  84  X.  W.  611,  the  court  said: 
''Application  has  been  made  by  min- 
ors for  present  examination  with  a 
view  to  admission  when  they  shall 
have  attained  the  age  of  majority. 
Such  is  not  the  spirit  and  intent  of 


tile  statute.  The  age  of  majority, 
with  the  attendant  riglit  of  control- 
ling one's  own  actions  free  of  the 
claim  of  the  parent  or  guardian,  are 
necessary  to  admission  to  the  bar  of 
tliis  court;  and  it  is  contemplated 
that  the  report  shall  follow  on  the 
examination,  and  show  that  at  that 
time  the  applicant  had  all  the  quali- 
lications  prescribed  by  the  act  of  tlie 
legislature.  Any  other  course  would 
require  a  subsequent  report,  show- 
ing that  at  the  time  tliereof  the  ap- 
plicant had  not  only  the  requisite 
age,  but  also  continued  to  sustain 
the  moral  character  required  by  the 
statute." 

3  See   In   re  Admission  to  the  Bar, 
61  Xeb.  58,  84  X.  W.  611. 


36 


ADMISSION    TO    TEACTICE. 


[§  31 


sion  to  the  bar  require  that  an  applicant  shall  be  twentv-one  years 
old.  Another  general  statute,  in  both  states,  provides  for  the  re- 
moval of  all  the  legal  disabilities  of  a  minor,  male  or  female,  to 
transact  business,  manage  property,  etc.,  on  petition  to  a  circuit 
judge.  In  Florida  it  has  been  held  that  a  youth  who  has  thus  been 
relieved  cannot  be  excluded  from  admission  to  the  bar  on  the 
ground  of  his  minority.*  But  in  Arkansas  the  court  correctly  held 
exactly  the  opposite.  The  statutes  prescribing  the  qualifications  of 
those  who  should  be  allowed  to  follow  a  particular  vocation  are  to 
be  regarded  as  special  statutes,  said  the  court,  while  the  statute  for 
the  removal  of  disabilities  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  general  statute, 
and  the  specific  provisions  of  the  special  should  be  treated  as  excep- 
tions to  and  qualifications  of  the  general.^ 

§  31.  Citizenship. — It  is  usually  provided,  either  by  the  con- 
stitution, the  statute  laws,  or  the  rules  of  court  in  each  jurisdiction, 
that,  in  order  to  be  eligible  to  admission  to  the  bar,  the  applicant 
therefor  must  be  a  citizen  of  the  state  and  of  the  United  States.® 


4  State  r.  Baker,  25  Fla.  598,  6 
So.  445. 

5  Ex  p.  Coleman,  54  Ark.  235,  15 
S.  W.  470.  See  also  Doles  c  Hilton, 
48  Ark.  305,  3  S.  W.   193. 

And  as  to  this  familiar  rule  of  stat- 
utory interpretation  see  1  Fed.  Stat. 
Annot.  cxiv.,  wherein  it  is  said:  '"It 
is  a  well-established  rule  that  general 
and  specific  provisions  in  apparent 
contradiction,  whether  in  tiie  same  or 
different  statutes,  and  witliout  re- 
gard to  priority  of  enactment,  may 
subsist  tojTotiier,  the  specific  qualify- 
ing and  supplying  exceptions  to  the 
general,"  citing  several  illustrative 
federal    cases. 

6  III  r<'  Admission  to  tiie  Bar,  01 
Neb.  58,  84  X.  W.  Oil;  In  re  Pvobin- 
8on,  82  Neb.  172,  17  Aim.  (as.  S7«, 
117  X.  VV.  352;  In  re  (jXeill,  90  N. 
Y.  584,  affirminif  27  Hun  599;  Kx  p. 
Thompson,  10  X.  C.  355;   In  re  Yam- 


ashita.  30  Wash.  234,  70  Pac.  482,  94 
Am.  i^i.  Kep.  8G0,  59  L.R.A.  671. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  "citizen," 
in  a  former  X^ew  York  constitution 
providing  that  "any  male  citizen,"  etc., 
should  be  entitled  to  admission  to 
practice  law,  was  held  to  be  limited 
to  citizens  of  Xew  York  state.  In 
re  Henry,  40  X.  Y.  5G0. 

In  Ex  p.  Thompson,  10  X.  C.  355, 
Cliiof  Justice  Taylor  said  re- 
garding tlie  policy  of  excluding 
aliens  from  tlie  privilege  of  prac- 
ticing law,  "Whatever  discretion 
resides  in  the  judges,  relative  to  the 
admission  of  attorneys,  ought  to  be 
exercised  with  a  view  to  the  advan- 
tage and  security  of  the  suitors  in 
the  several  courts ;  for  to  them  the 
license  is  a  guarantee  that  in  the 
ojiinion  of  the  magistrates  signing  it 
the  licentiate  is  politically,  not  less 
than  legally  and  morally,  qualilied  to 


!1] 


ADI^IISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


37 


The  privilege,  however,  has  been  extended  by  statute  in  some 
states  to  those  who  have  dccLared  their  intention  to  beeome  citizens,' 
and  such  a  provision  has  been  lield  to  be  constitutional ;  *  but  the 
mere  declaration  of  an  intention  cannot,  of  course,  entitle  one  to 
admission  to  the  bar  where  it  is  self-evident  that  he  cannot  be 
naturalized,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  a  ]\rougolian.^  If  a 
court  has  licensed  an  alien  to  practice  law,  it  may,  on  discovering 
that  it  bad  no  power  to  do  so,  and  after  notice  and  hearing,  revoke 
the  license.^"    By  construction  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  for 


transact  their  business.  .  .  .  There 
is  no  profession  relative  to  which  the 
public  good  more  inijieriously  requires 
that  its  members  should  duly  appre- 
ciate, and  honestly  maintain,  the 
freedom,  the  purity,  and  the  genuine 
spirit  of  our  political  institutions. 
These  are  so  blended  and  interwoven 
with  the  civil  rights  of  the  citizen, 
they  present  themselves  in  such  an 
infinity  of  relations,  as  additional 
abutments  to  the  several  charters  of 
property  and  personal  security,  that 
it  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  a  pro- 
fessional advocate,  owing  foreign  al- 
legiance and  cherishing  alien  preju- 
dices, can  usefully  vindicate  princi- 
ples in  the  abhorrence  of  which  he 
may  have  been  nurtured;  how,  on 
many  important  occasions,  the  most 
brilliant  forensic  talents  can  be  suc- 
cessfull}'  exerted,  unless  they  are  sus- 
tained and  inspired  by  an  ardent 
patriotism.  The  excellence  of  every 
human  system  of  laws  consists  as 
much  in  their  administration  and 
practice  as  in  the  theory  itself. 
Viewing  the  profession  of  the  law  as 
the  source  from  which  the  superior 
judicial  magistrates  must  be  derived, 
and  from  which  a  large  proportion  of 
enlightened  and  efficient  public  officers 
is  usually  selected,  every  one  must 
naturally     feel     solicitous      that      it 


should  not  fall  into  such  hands  as 
would  lower  it  in  the  national  opin- 
ion. It  would  be  difficult  to  avoid 
this  consequence  if  aliens  were  en- 
titled to  admission;  for  legal  acquire- 
ments and  private  worth  may  subsist 
with  inveterate  prejudices  against  the 
principles  of  our  government.  In 
such  an  arrangement  society  w'ould 
cease  to  derive  that  benefit  from  the 
profession  which  it  now  affords,  by 
supplj'ing  a  continual  succession  of 
men  qualified  and  worthy  to  preside 
in  the  courts  of  justice.  Xo  longer 
a  nursery  in  which  merit  is  trained 
under  the  directing  hand  of  exper- 
ience, and  qualified  to  render  manly 
and  essential  services  to  the  commun- 
ity, the  legal  profession  'in  its  na- 
ture the  noblest  and  most  beneficial 
to  mankind ;  in  its  abuse  and  de- 
basement the  most  sordid  and  perni- 
cious,' would  sink  into  a  mere  mer- 
cenary instrument,  without  sympathy 
in  the  public  prosperity,  and  without 
hold  on  the  public  confidence."' 

7  In    re   Hong   Yen    Chang,    S4    Cal. 
1G3,  24  Pac.  15G. 

8  Ex  p.  Porter,  3  Ohio  Dec.  3.33. 

9  In    re   Hong  Yen   Chang,    84    Cal. 
]03,  24  Pac.  ]56. 

10  In  re  O'Neill,  00  N.  Y.  584,  af- 
firming 27  Hun  599. 


38 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§     ^^'- 


the  Philippine  Islands/^  all  foreigners  are  excluded  from  the  legal 
profession  in  these  islands;  all  members  of  the  bar  must  be  either 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  persons  enjoying  the  status  of  na- 
tives of  the  Philippines.^^  A  similar  rule  prevails  in  Hawaii.^'  In 
the  absence  of  any  constitutional  prohibition,  however,  the  legis- 
lature would  have  power  to  provide  for  the  admission  of  aliens  to 
the  bar,^^  And  where  neither  the  constitution,  nor  any  other  law 
or  rule,  prohibits  an  alien's  admission,  the  court  has,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  its  discretion,  allowed  it,^^  but  the  validity  of  such  action  is, 
to  say  the  least,  doubtful. ^^  It  seems  that  even  an  alien  may  be 
permitted,  as  a  matter  of  comity,  to  appear  in  or  conduct  a  particu- 
lar case.^' 

§  32.  Residence.  —  Under  most  of  the  state  statutes  a  person's 
residence  in  the  state  for  a  specified  period  immediately  preceding 
his  application  for  admission  to  the  bar  is  an  essential  qualifica- 
tion for  admission,^^     The  reason  for  such  provisions  is,  as  stated 


11  1  Pub.  Laws,  p.  378,  §  13,  quoted 
in  Bosque  r.  U.  S.,  209  U.  S.  91,  99, 
28  S.  Ct.  501,  .52  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)   698. 

12  Bosque  r.  U.  S.,  209  U.  S.  91,  28 
S.  Ct.  50],  52  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    698. 

13  In  Ashford's  Petition.  4  Hawaii 
614,  tlie  court  lield  that  by  construc- 
tion of  the  Hawaiian  Civil  Code  it 
liad  no  power  to  admit  to  the  bar  a 
person  who  was  not  a  subject  of 
Hawaii. 

14  See  In  re  O'Neill,  90  X.  Y.  584: 
E.x:  p.  Thompson,  10  N.  C.   355,  359. 

See  also  §§  28,  29. 

15  ]\Iatter  of  Emmet,  cited  in  Cod- 
wise  r.  Hacker,  2  Cai.  (N.  Y.)  38(i, 
wherein  it  was  said:  "In  the  case  of 
Tiionias  Addis  Emmet,  Esq.,  who  was 
admitted  in  tiiis  term  to  the  decree 
of  counselor,  the  court  determined  that 
alienism  was  no  bar  to  admission, 
our  statute  not  requiring  tiu'  oatiis 
of  abjuration  and  allei^^iance  to  Ix-  ad- 
niiriistercd    either    to    counsel    or    ;it 


torneys,  and  this  court  having,  there- 
fore, no  power  so  to  do.  That  the 
only  oath  requisite  was  that  of  office: 
nor  could  they  conceive  how  the  prac- 
tice of  admitting  the  others  had 
crept  in,  unless  from  tiie  old  colonial 
practice,  under  the  statute  of  13  \Vm. 
III.  (c.  6),  made  to  secure  the  crown 
against  the  Pretender,  by  the  provi- 
sions of  which  counselors  and  at- 
torneys are  enjoined  to  take  tiie  oath.s 
of  allegiance  and  abjuration.  But  by 
lliose  of  4  Hen.  IV.  (c.  18),  from 
wlience  our  act  is  borrowed,  the  oath 
of  oHice  only  is  prescribed,  upon  tak- 
iiii;  of  wiiich  Mv.  Emmet  received 
iiis     license.'" 

16  See  Caines'  Case,  3  Johns.  Caa. 
(2d  ed.  N.  \".)  499,  holding  that  an 
alien  cannot  be  admitted,  since  he 
cannot    take    the    oath    of    allegiance. 

And  see  §  54. 

17  Sec    §   22. 

18  III   re  .\(lmi.ssion  to  Bar,  61   Neb. 


§   32J 


ADMISS102J    TO    PKACTICK. 


39 


in  one  case,  that  "practicing  attorneys  who  reside  in  other  states 
or  any  of  the  territories  are,  as  a  rule,  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  courts  of  this  state,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  its  process  in  case 
their  professional  action  is  called  in  question  and  the  disciplinary 
power  of  the  court  is  invoked  against  them.""  Accordingly,  pur- 
suant to  statutory  mandate,  a  reputable  member  of  the  Iowa  bar, 
whoso  home  and  otKce  were  at  Sioux  City,  just  over  the  line  be- 
tween the  two  states,  and  whose  professional  business  in  Nebraska 
had  grown  to  large  dimensions,  was  denied  admission  to  practice 
generally  in  the  courts  of  Nebraska. ^°  Likewise,  an  Illinois  attor- 
ney, resident  in  that  state,  was  denied  a  general  license  to  practice 


58,  84  X.  W.  611:  In  re  Robinson, 
82  Neb.  172,  17  Ann.  Cas.  878,  117 
N.   W.   352. 

In  North  CaroJinn  under  the  code 
pi'ovision  wliicli  requires  all  attorneys 
to  take  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
state  it  would  seem  that  a  residence 
in  that  state  is  a  necessary  qualifica- 
tion for  admission  to  the  bar.  See 
Manning  v.  Roanoke,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  122 
N.  C.  824,  28  8.  E.  963. 

19  In  re  Admission  to  the  Bar,  6i 
Neb.  58,  84  N.  W.  Oil,  quoted  in  the 
case  of  In  re  Robinson,  82  Neb.  172, 
17  Ann.  Cas.  878,  117  N.  W.  352. 

In  the  case  of  In  re  Mosness,  39 
Wis.  509,  511,  20  Am.  Rep.  55,  Chief 
Justice  Ryan  said:  "The  oftice  of 
attorney  and  counselor  of  tiie  courts 
is  one  of  great  official  trust  and  re- 
sponsibility in  the  administration  of 
justice;  one  liable  to  great  abuse: 
and  has  always  been  exercised  in  al! 
courts  proceeding  according  to  the 
course  of  the  common  law,  subject  to 
strict  oversight  and  summary  power 
of  the  court.  It  would  be  an  anomaly, 
dangerous  to  the  safe  administration 
of  justice,  that  the  office  should  be 
filled  by  persons  residing  beyond  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  court,  and  practi- 
cally not  subject  to  its  authority.    We 


take  it  tliat  members  of  the  bar  ot 
this  state  lose  their  riglit  to  practice 
here  by  removing  from  the  state. 
After  they  become  nonresidents  they 
can  appear  in  courts  of  this  state  ex 
gratia  only.  Our  courts  cannot  have 
a  nonresident  bar." 

If  a  nonresident  attorney  had  no 
office  within  the  state  he  miglit  en- 
tirely evade  service  of  papers  upon 
him  pursuant  to  statutory  regixla- 
tions,  and  thus  "'baffle  his  adversary 
and  the  court;"  and  he  might  also 
evade  the  remedies  by  attachment  or 
punishment  for  contempt  of  court 
for  the  commission  of  various  acts 
of  misconduct.  Richardson  r.  Brook- 
lyn City,  etc.,  R.  Co..  22  How.  Pr. 
(N.    Y.)     308. 

20  In  re  Robinson,  82  Neb.  172,  17 
Ann.  Cas.  878,  117  N.  W.  352,  quot- 
ing the  statute,  however,  which  pro- 
vides that  "any  practicing  attorney 
in  the  courts  of  record  of  another 
state  or  territory,  having  professional 
business  in  either  tlie  supreme  or  dis- 
trict courts,  may,  on  motion,  be  ad- 
mitted to  practice  (for  the  purpose 
of  said  business  only)  in  either  of 
said  courts,  upon  taking  the  oath  as 
aforesaid."  See  also  In  re  Burton, 
76  Neb.  752,  107  N.  W.  1015. 


40  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    33 

in  Wisconsin.*  But  it  is  the  usual  practice  of  conrts  of  record  in 
the  several  states  to  permit  members  of  the  bar  in  other  states 
to  appear  as  counsel  on  the  trial  or  argument  of  causes,  without 
obtaining  a  general  license,  the  custom  being  to  grant  leave  ex 
gratia  for  the  occasion.^  In  ISTew  York  it  is  provided  by  statute 
that  a  person  regularly  admitted  to  practice  as  an  attor- 
ney and  counselor  in  the  courts  of  record  of  the  state,  whose 
office  for  the  transaction  of  law  business  is  within  the  state,  may 
jjractice  as  such  attorney  or  counselor,  although  he  resides  in  an 
adjoining  state.^  The  admission  of  aliens  has  been  considered  here- 
inbefore.* 

§  33.  Race.  —  Where  an  applicant  for  admission  to  the  bar  is 
of  a  race  the  members  of  which  are  not  entitled  to  citizenship  in 
the  United  States,  he  cannot  be  admitted  to  practice,  as,  by  way 
of  illustration,  where  the  applicant  is  a  Mongolian,*  Where,  how- 
ever, the  applicant's  race  does  not  prevent  his  becoming  a  citizen, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  negro,  a  different  question  arises.  It  has  been 
held  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitu- 
tion has  reference  only  to  the  rights  and  immunities  belonging  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States  as  such,  as  contradistinguished  from 
those  belonging  to  them  as  citizens  of  a  state.®  It  seems  clear  also 
that  the  right  to  control  and  regulate  the  granting  of  a  license  to 
practice  law  in  the  courts  of  a  state  is  one  of  those  powers  which 
are  not  transferred  for  its  jDrotection  to  the  federal  government, 
and  that  its  exercise  is  in  no  manner  governed  or  controlled  by 
citizenship  of  the  United  States  in  the  party  seeking  such  license.''' 
Therefore,  it  has  been  held  that  the  privilege  of  admission  to  the 

1  In  re  :\]osiU'Ss,  39  Wis.  oOn,  20  1G3,  24  Pac.  356  (Chinose):  In  re 
Am.  Kep.  55,  lioldinj^  tliat  if  tlic  Wis-  Yaniashita,  30  Wash.  234,  70  Pac. 
c-onsin  statuto  intended  to  deprive  482,  94  Am.  St.  Rep.  8(iO,  59  L.R.A. 
the   court   of   tlic    power   to   withliold  (!71    (Japanese). 

a  iieense  in  stich  a  case,  "it  was  clear-  6  Tlie     Slaughter- House     (uses,     IG 

ly   witlioMt   tiie   i)ower   of  the   legisla-  Wall.    30,    21    U.    S.     (I.,    ed.)     394: 

ture."  Matter  of  Taylor,  48  :\1(1.  2S,  30  Am. 

2  See  §  22.  Rep.  451. 

8§  470  of  llie  .liidiciary  T.aw.  7  Rradwc  11  r.  Illinois.  Ki  Wall.  130, 

4See    §    31.  lil    V.  S.    (  L.  ed.  )    442:    In    re    Taylor, 

5  III    !■.•    lion;.'    \vn    Chan-,    S4    Vi\\.       48   Md.  2S,  30  Am.    Kep.  451. 


§    34]  ADIMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  41 

office  of  an  attorney  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  right  or  immunity 
belonging  to  the  citizen,  but  is  governed  and  regulated  by  the  state 
legislature,  which  may  prescribe  the  qualifications  required,  and 
designate  the  class  of  persons  who  may  be  admitted,  and  thus 
exclude  the  negro.'  As  said  by  Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  "in  the 
nature  of  things  it  is  not  every  citizen  of  every  age,  sex  and  condi- 
tion that  is  qualified  for  every  calliug  and  position.  It  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  legislator  to  prescribe  regulations  founded  on 
nature,  reason  and  experience,  for  the  due  admission  of  qualified 
persons  to  professions  and  callings  demanding  special  skill  and 
confidence.  This  fairly  belongs  to  the  police  power  of  the  state."  ^ 
It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  negroes  have  been  admitted  to  practice 
in  almost  all  jurisdictions.  In  some  states  it  is  expressly  provided 
by  statute  that  race  shall  not  constitute  a  cause  for  refusing 
to  admit  an  applicant  to  practice  law.^° 

§  34.  Moral  Character.  —  Satisfactory  evidence  of  the  good 
moral  character  of  an  applicant  for  admission  to  the  bar  is  re- 
quired in  all  jurisdictions,^^  to  the  end  that  the  court  may  be  as- 
sured that  the  applicant  is  a  proper  person  to  transact  faithfully 
and  honestly  the  business  of  an  attorney  at  law.^^     If  it  appears 

8  In  re  Taylor,  48  Md.  28,  30  Am.  the  practice  of  the  law  unless  he  pos- 
Rep.  451.  sessed    an    upright    moral    character. 

9  Bradvvell  v.  Illinois,  16  Wall.  130,  The  possession  of  this  by  tlie  attorney 
21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  442;  In  re  Taylor,  is  more  important,  if  anything,  to 
48  Md.  28,  30  Am.  Rep.  451.  the  public  and  to  the  proper  admin- 

10  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  56 ;  Judi-  istration  of  justice  than  legal  learn- 
ciary  Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New  York,  ing.  Legal  learning  may  be  acquired 
§  467.  in   after   years,  but   if   tlie   applicant 

11  See  Ex  p.  Garland,  4  Wall.  333,  passes  the  threshold  of  the  bar  with 
18  U.  S.  (L.  ed. )  366;  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  a  bad  moral  character  the  chances  are 
Pro.   §   56.  that   his   character   will   remain   bad. 

Attorneys    "are    required   to   be    of  and   that  he  will   become   a  disgrace 

good    moral    character,    so    that    the  instead  of  an  ornament  to  his  great 

agents  and  officers  of  the  court,  which  calling — a  curse  instead  of  a  benefit 

they    are,    may    not    bring    discredit  to    his    community."     Per  Brown,  J., 

upon    the   due   administration   of   the  dissenting    in    In    re    Applicants    for 

law."     Per  :\larston,  C.  J.,  in  Cobb  V.  License,  143  N.  C.  1,  21,  10  Ann.  Cas. 

Judge,  43  Mich.  289,  291,  5  N.  W.  309.  187,    55    S.   E.   635,    10   L.R.A.(N.S.) 

"The  public  policy  of  our  state  has  288. 

always   been    to    admit   no   person   to  12  State  v.  Byrkett,  4  Ohio  Dec.  89. 


42 


ADMISSIOA^    TO    PEACTICE. 


[§  31 


that  the  applicant  is  deficient  in  this  respect,  his  application  will 
be  denied. ^^  It  is  clearly  within  the  power  of  the  legislature,  or 
of  the  court  in  the  absence  of  legislation,  not  only  to  prescribe  a 
requirement  as  to  good  character,  but  to  designate  the  person,  body. 


The  requirement  as  to  good  moral 
character  includes  common  honesty, 
which  is  not  satisfied  by  such  conduct 
as  merely  enables  one  to  escape  the 
penalties  of  the  criminal  law.  People 
r.  Macauley,  230  111.  208,  82  N.  E. 
612,  120  Am.  St.  Rep.  287. 

New  York. — Rule  10  of  the  rules  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at  law 
provides:  "The  justices  of  the  appel- 
late division  in  each  department  may 
adopt  for  their  several  and  respective 
departments  such  additional  special 
rules  for  ascertaining  the  moral  and 
general  fitness  of  applicants  as  to 
such    justices   may   seem    proper." 

Rule  1  of  the  general  rules  of  prac- 
tice provides:  "Within  ten  days 
after  the  first  day  of  January  in 
each  year,  the  appellate  division  in 
each  department  shall  appoint  a  com- 
mittee on  character  and  fitness  of 
not  less  than  three  for  the  depart- 
ment, or  may  appoint  a  committee 
for  each  judicial  district  witiiin  the 
department,  to  whom  shall  be  referred 
all  applications  for  admission  to 
practice  as  attorney  and  counselor 
at  law,  such  committee  to  continue  in 
ofTice  until  tlicir  successors  aro  ap- 
pointed. To  the  respective  conun it- 
tees  aliall  lie  nfcrri'd  all  applications 
for  admission  to  practice,  eith(.'r  upon 
the  certificate  of  the  state  board  of 
law  examiners,  or  u])(m  motion  uiuIit 
rule  II  of  the  rules  of  tlie  Court  ot 
.\pj)eiils  for  the  admission  of  attor- 
nevH  and  counr^dors  at  law.  Tlii' 
(•(iMimiltee    sliall     riM|uiii'    tlif    attriid- 


ance  before  it,  or  a  member  tiiereof, 
of  eacli  applicant,  witli  the  affidavit  of 
at  least  two  practicing  attorneys  ac- 
quainted with  such  applicant,  resid- 
ing in  the  judicial  district  in  which 
the  applicant  resides,  that  he  is  of 
such  character  and  general  fitness  as 
justifies  admission  to  practice,  and 
the  affidavit  must  set  forth  in  detail 
the  facts  upon  which  the  affiant's 
knowledge  of  the  applicant  is  based, 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  com- 
mittee to  examine  each  applicant,  and 
the  committee  must  be  satisfied  from 
such  examination,  and  other  evidenci- 
that  the  applicant  shall  produce,  that 
the  applicant  has  such  qualifications 
as  to  character  and  general  fitness 
as  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee 
justifies  admission  to  practice,  and 
no  person  shall  be  admitted  to  prac- 
tice except  upon  the  production  of  a 
certificate  from  the  committee  to  that 
efl'ect,  unless  the  court  otherwise  or- 
ders. .  .  .  No  applicant  shall  be  en- 
titled to  receive  sucli  a  certificate  who 
is  not  able  to  speak  and  to  write  the 
EnglisJi  language  intelligently,  nor  un- 
til he  ailirmatively  establishes  to  the 
satisfaction  of  tlie  committee  that  he 
possesses  such  cliaracter  as  justifies  his 
admission  to  the  bar  and  qualifies 
him  to  perform  the  duties  of  an  at- 
torney and   counselor   at  law.'' 

13  In  re  Attorney's  License,  21  N. 
.1.  L.  345;  In  re  Harris,  (!(>  N.  ,1.  L. 
473.  49  Atl.  728:  In  re  Application 
for  License  to  Practice  Law,  67  \V. 
\a.  213,  07  S.  E.  597. 


54] 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


43 


or  officer  from  whom  a  reconimendatioii  to  this  effect  shall  be 
obtained.  Thus  it  inay  be  rendered  essential  that  the  applicant  be 
recommended  by  the  county  bar  association  before  he  will  be 
entitled  to  examination  by  the  state  examining  board;  ^*  and  where 
an  attorney  of  one  state  applies  for  admission  to  practice  his  pro- 
fessional calling  in  another,  it  is  usual  to  require  a  certificate  of 
character  from  the  court  wherein  he  has  last  practiced/^  and  this 
is  also  true  of  an  application  for  admission  to  practice  in  a  county 
other  than  that  wherein  the  applicant  was  originally  admitted, 
where  that  system  prevails ;  ^^  and,  necessarily,  those  to  whom  he 
is  thus  referred  may,  for  proper  cause,  refuse  to  recommend  him.^' 
The  presentation  to  the  court  of  an  acceptable  certificate  of  char- 
acter is  at  least  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  applicant  possesses 
this  essential  attribute ;  ^^  but  as  evidence  of  character  is  at  best 


14  In  re  O'Brien,  79  Conn.  46,  63 
Atl.  777. 

15  See    §    59. 

16  Matter  of  Splane,  123  Pa.  St.  527, 
539,  16  Atl.  48],  where  Paxson,  C.  J., 
said:  "A  lawyer  may  chance  to  be  a 
member  of  the  bar  of  lialf  the  coun- 
ties in  the  state;  he  may  be  admitted 
in  a  county  other  than  the  one  in 
which  he  resides,  for  the  mere  purpose 
of  trying  a  single  case.  It  is  the 
merest  evasion  of  the  act  to  present  • 
the  certificate  of  the  judge  of  a  dis- 
trict where  the  petitioner  has  not  last 
lived  and  practiced,  and  an  admis- 
sion to  the  bar  obtained  by  svich 
means  might  well  be  vacated  by  the 
judge  who  should  inadvertently  grant 
it,  as  a  fraud  vipon  the  court.'' 

17  In  re  O'Brien,  70  Conn.  46,  63 
Atl.  777. 

18  In  re  Application  for  License  to 
Practice  Law,  67  W.  Va.  213,  67  S.  E. 
507. 

Under  the  West  Virginia  statute 
an  applicant  for  a  license  to  practice 
law  must  first  prove  to  tlie  satisfac- 
tion of  the  county  court  of  his  county 


that  he  has  a  good  moral  character, 
whereupon  that  court  enters  an  order 
on  its  record  accordingly,  and  a  cer- 
tified copy  of  the  order  must  be  pro- 
duced in  support  of  the  application 
in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals, 
or  other  court,  for  a  license  to  prac- 
tice. After  much  consideration  it 
was  held  that  the  statute  intended 
to  make  the  order  of  the  county 
court  simply  prima  facie  evidence. 
In  re  Application,  etc.,  67  W.  Va. 
213,  67  S.  E.  597.  601  (by  a  divided 
court),  wherein  Miller,  J.,  speaking 
for  a  majority  of  the  court  said : 
"We  cannot  assume  the  legislature 
thus  intended  to  impose  im worthy 
persons  upon  the  courts.  The  con- 
trary is  to  be  presumed.  We  must 
construe  the  statute  as  intended  to  be 
in  aid  of  the  courts,  and  to  leave  this 
court,  upon  an  application  for  license, 
and  all  the  courts  upon  application 
for  admission  to  practice,  free  to  treat 
the  order  of  the  county  court  simply 
as  prima  facie  evidence,  and  to  in- 
stitute any  other  and  further  inquiry 
into  the  moral  character  of  the  appli- 


44 


ADMISSION    TO    rRACTICE. 


but  that  of  rej^utation,  it  is  clear  that  even  such  a  certificate  is  not 
binding  on  the  court ;  they  not  only  may,  but  where  it  is  believed 
that  there  is  a  good  reason  for  so  doing,  they  should,  look  behind 
such  certificate  in  order  to  determine  to  their  own  satisfaction  the 
fitness  of  the  applicant  in  this  respect.^^  In  North  Carolina,  how- 
ever, under  a  statute  which  provided  that  "all  applicants  who 
shall  satisfy  the  court  of  their  competent  knowledge  of  the  law 
shall  receive  license  to  practice  in  all  the  courts  of  this  state,"  it 
was  held  that  the  court  had  no  power  to  go  behind  the  certificate 
and  investigate  the  moral  character  of  an  applicant  for  admission 
to  the  bar.^° 

§  35.  Eligibility  of  Corporations.  — A  corporation  cannot  be 

admitted  to  the  bar;  and,  as  it  cannot  practice  law  directly,  it 
cannot  do  so  indirectly  by  employing  competent  lawyers  to  prac- 


cant  deemed  necessary.  Otherwise  the 
act  of  the  legislature  would  have  to 
be  declared  an  encroachment  on  the 
judiciary,  and  void  on  constitutional 
grounds."  Poflfenbarger,  J.  (Brannon, 
J.,  concurring),  in  the  course  of  an 
elaborate  dissenting  opinion,  said : 
"There  is  a  distinction  between  the 
licensing  of  a  person  to  practice  law 
and  his  admission  to  the  bar  of  the 
court  after  he  has  been  licensed, 
'ill is  court  alone  can  grant  a  license. 
That  license  is  good  all  over  the  state, 
but  it  alone  does  not  admit  its  holder 
to  the  bar  of  any  court  in  the  state, 
not  even  tliis.  the  granting,  coiirt. 
A  subsequent  act  of  admission  is  es- 
sential to  enrollment  as  a  member  of 
the  bar.  and  eacli  court  must  do  that 
for  itself.  The  license  is  an  essential 
|)riT<Mjiiisit('  to  admissidH.  \\  ithout 
it,  no  application  for  admission  can 
be  made,  but  it  is  not  admission,  nor 
the  criuivalont  thereof.  T'racticing 
without  admission,  after  ha\iiig  o!)- 
tiiincd  a  licfiisc,  is  made  a  inisdi'MU'an- 
<ir  an<l   piinisiicd  by  fine.     W'iictiier  a 


licensee  can  be  denied  admission  is 
another  question  altogetlier,  and  has 
no  material  bearing  on  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  statute.  In  marking 
this  distinction  between  license  and 
admission,  I  am  merely  stating  the 
plain  terms  of  the  statute.  4  Min. 
Inst.  pt.  ],  204.  From  this  it  is 
plain  that  the  license  only  enables  its 
holder  to  apply  for  admission.  The 
requirement  is  a  limitation  upon  the 
right  to  make  such  application.  .  .  . 
Tills  distinction  between  license  and 
admission  or  membership  of  the  bar 
has  not  escaped  judicial  notice.  On 
the  contrary,  it  has  been  asserted  and 
emi)hasized."  Citing  Fisher's  Case, 
li  i.eigh  (Va.)  ()19;  Ex  p.  Hunter,  2 
\V.  Va.  122,  144,  and  State  r.  Mc- 
Chiugherty,  33  VV.  Va.  250,  10  S.  E. 
107. 

19  In  re  Attorney's  License,  21  N. 
.1.    L.    345. 

20  In  re  Applicants  for  License,  143 
X.  C.  1,  10  Ann.  Gas.  LS7,  55  S.  E. 
(135,  10  L.U.A.(N.S,)   288. 


§   3G] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


45 


tice  for  it,  as  that  would  be  an  evasion  which  the  law  will  not 
tolerate.^ 

Eligibility  of  Women. 

§  36.  Present  Status.  — Either  by  virtue  of  specific  statutory 
authority,  or  by  judicial  construction  of  laws  which  contain  no 
prohibitory  phraseology,  the  eligibility  of  women  to  practice  law 
is  generally  recognized.^     It  seems  that  Arkansas,  Georgia,  and 


1  In  re  Co-operative  Law  Co.,  IflS 
N.  Y.  479,  19  Ann.  Cas.  882,  92  N. 
E.  ]5,  139  Am.  St.  Rep.  839,  32  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  55,  per  Vann,  J.,  continuing 
as  follows :  "The  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  is  that  of  master  and  serv- 
ant in  a  limited  and  dignified  sense, 
and  it  involves  the  highest  trust  and 
confidence.  It  cannot  be  delegated 
without  consent,  and  it  cannot  exist 
between  an  attorney  employed  by  a 
corporation  to  practice  law  for  it,  and 
a  client  of  the  corporation,  for  he 
would  be  subject  to  the  directions  of 
the  corporation,  and  not  to  the  direc- 
tions of  the  client.  There  would  be 
neither  contract  nor  privity  between 
liim  and  the  client,  and  he  would  not 
owe  even  the  duty  of  counsel  to  the 
actual  litigant.  The  corporation 
would  control  the  litigation,  the  mon- 
ey earned  would  belong  to  the  corpor- 
ation, and  the  attorney  would  be  re- 
sponsible to  the  corporation  only.  His 
master  would  not  be  the  client  but 
the  corporation,  conducted  it  may  be 
wholly  by  laymen,  organized  simply 
to  make  money  and  not  to  aid  in  the 
administration  of  justice  which  is  the 
highest  function  of  an  attorney  and 
counselor  at  law.  The  corporation 
might  not  have  a  lawyer  among  its 
stockliolders,  directors,  or  officers.  Its 
members  might  be  without  character, 
learning  or  standing.  There  would 
be  no  remedv  bv  attachment  or  disbar- 


ment to  protect  the  public  from  im- 
position or  fraud,  no  stimulus  to 
good  conduct  from  the  traditions  of 
an  ancient  and  honorable  profession, 
and  no  guide  except  the  sordid  pur- 
pose to  earn  money  for  stockholders. 
The  bar,  which  is  an  institution  of 
the  highest  usefulness  and  standing, 
would  be  degraded  if  even  its  hum- 
blest member  became  subject  to  the 
orders  of  a  money-making  corporation 
engaged  not  in  conducting  litigation 
for  itself,  but  in  the  business  of  con- 
ducting litigation  for  others.  The  deg- 
radation of  the  bar  is  an  injury  to 
the  state.  A  corporation  can  neither 
practice  law  nor  hire  lawyers  to  carry 
on  the  business  of  practicing  law  for 
it  any  more  than  it  can  practice  med- 
icine or  dentistry." 

2  Colorado. — In  re  Thomas,  16  Colo. 
44],  27  Pac.  707,  13  L.R.A.  538. 

Connecticut.- — In  re  Hall,  50  Conn. 
131,  47  Am.  Rep.  025. 

Indiana. — In  re  Leach,  134  Ind. 
665,  34  X.  E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701. 

A>io  Hampshire. — In  re  Ricker,  66 
N.  H.  207,  29  Atl.  559,  24  L.R.A.  740. 

Neio  York.— Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  56, 
rendering  obsolete  In  re  Stoneman,  53 
Am.  Rep.  325  note  (decided  prior  to 
the  amendment  of  §  56  of  the  code 
above  cited). 

Pennsylvania. — In  re  Kilgore,  17 
W.  N.  C.  562,  14  W.  N.  C.  466.  2  Del. 
Co.    Rep.    105;    In    re    Richardson,    3 


46  ADMISSION    TO    TRACTICE.  \^    'M 

Virginia  are  the  only  states  wherein  women  are  now  refused  admis- 
sion to  practice.^  A  custom  against  the  admission  of  women  could 
not.  it  has  been  held,  be  ])redicated  on  the  fact  that  they  had  never 
before  been  allowed  to  practice.'*  The  necessity  of  increasing  the 
avenues  of  employment  to  which  women  may  direct  their  talents 
has  swept  away  barriers  which  in  the  past  would  surely  have  pre- 
vented their  admission  to  the  bar.  Thus  it  has  been  held  that 
the  fact  that  an  applicant  is  a  married  woman  does  not  constitute 
a  disability  in  this  respect.*  So,  too,  it  has  been  held  that  the 
requirement  as  to  the  taking  of  the  oath  of  office  does  not  prevent 
the  admission  of  women  to  the  bar.®  Even  a  constitutional  provi- 
sion to  the  effect  that  every  person  of  good  moral  character,  being 
a  voter,  shall  be  entitled  to  admission  to  the  bar,  was  held  not  to 
exclude  women  from  the  practice  of  law.'  The  general  question 
of  admitting  women  to  practice  has  been  the  source  of  so  many 
interesting  and  varied  opinions  that  it  has  been  considered  advis- 
able to  set  them  out  more  fully  in  the  sections  which  follow. 

§  37.  At  Common  Law.  —  By  the  common  law  of  England 
no  woman,  married  or  unmarried,  under  the  degree  of  a  queen, 
could  take  part  in  the  government  of  the  state ;  women  could  not 
sit  in  the  House  of  Commons  or  in  the  House  of  Lords,  nor  vote 
for  members  of  Parliament ;  '  they  could  not  take  part  in  the 
administration  of  justice,  either  as  judges  or  jurors,  with  the  single 
exception  of  inquiries  by  a  jury  of  matrons  upon  a  suggestion  of 

Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  299;   Tn  ro  Kast.  14  Pa.  4  In  re  Kilgore,  14  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.) 

Co.  Ct.  432,  ,3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  302.  46G. 

Wisconsin.— In  re  Goodcll,  48  Wis.  6  In  re  Kilgore,  17  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.) 

f;93,  81  N.  W.  551,  rendering  obsolete  475,    5    Atl.    872.     See    also    Ricker's 

In   re  Goodell,   39  Wis.   2.32,  20  Am.  Petition,  66  N.  H.  207,  29  Atl.  559, 

Rep.  42   (decided  prior  to  the  statute  24  L.R.A.  740;   In  re  Kilgore,  14  W. 

wliich    aiitliorizes    the    admission    of  N.   C.    (Pa.)    255;    In   re   Kilgore,   2 

woim-n  to  tlic  bar).  Del.  Co.  Rep.   (Pa.)    105. 

3  The    text    statement    as    to    the  6  Richardsoirs  Case,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

states  wherein  women  are  not  admit-  299.      Contra    Lo<"kwood   v.   U.    S.,   9 

ted    to   practice  law  is   made   on   the  Ct.  CI.  34G. 

aiitliority    of    data    furnished    to    the  7  Tn  re  Loach,   134  Ind.  065,  34   N. 

iuithor   by  the  editor  of  the  Women  E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701. 

Lawyers'    Journal     (Richmond     Hill,  ^In    re    Robinson,    131    Mass.   376, 

X.  v.).  377,  41    Am.  Rep.  239,  citing  4  Inst. 


I 


§  37] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


47 


pregnancy.^  And  no  case  is  knoAvn  in  which  a  woman  was  admit- 
ted to  practice  as  an  attorney,  solicitor,  or  barrister.^"  Indeed,  it 
is  generally  conceded  that  women  have  no  common-law  right  to 
practice   law."      It  will   be   noticed,   however,    that  women   have 


5,  Rutland's  Case,  6  Coke  (Eng.) 
52b,  and  Choilton  r.  Lings,  L.  R.  4 
C.  P.    (Eng.)    374,  391,  392. 

"The  common  law  of  England, 
which  was  our  law  upon  the  subject, 
permitted  a  woman  to  fill  any  local 
office  of  an  administrative  cliaracter, 
tlie  duties  attached  to  which  were 
such  that  a  woman  Mas  competent  to 
perform  them."  Opinions  of  Justices, 
135  Mass.  602,  holding  that,  under 
tlie  state  constitution,  a  woman  was 
capable  of  being  a  member  of  a  school 
committee. 

^  In  re  Robinson,  131  Mass.  376, 
41  Am.  Rep.  239,  citing  2  Inst.  119, 
121,  3  Bl.  Com.  362,  4  Bl.  Com.  395, 
and  Willes,  J.,  in  Chorlton  r.  Lings, 
L.  R.  4  C.  P.  (Eng.)   390,  391. 

10  In  In  ro  Bradwell,  55  111.  535, 
539,  Lawrence,  J.,  said:  "Female  at- 
torneys at  law  were  unknown  in 
England,  and  a  proposition  that  a 
woman  should  enter  the  courts  of 
Westminster  Hall  in  that  capacity,  or 
as  a  barrister,  would  have  created 
hardly  less  astonishment  than  one 
that  she  should  ascend  the  bencli  of 
bishops,  or  be  elected  to  a  seat  in  the 
House  of  Commons." 

In  Robinson's  Case,  131  Mass.  376, 
41  Am.  Rep.  239,  Mr.  Justice  Gray 
said :  "The  only  English  'instance  of 
a  woman  lawyer'  cited  by  the  peti- 
tioner is  that  stated  in  a  note  of  Mr. 
Butler  to  Coke  upon  Littleton  as  fol- 
lows: 'Tlie  celebrated  Anne.  Countess 
of  Pembroke,  Dorset  and  Montgomery, 
had  the  oflice  of  hereditary  Shcrifl"  of 
Westmoreland,  and  exercised  it  in  per- 


son. At  the  assizes  .  .  .  she  sat 
witli  the  judges  on  the  bench.'  Co.  Litt. 
32Ua  note  280.  No  authority  is  given 
for  the  statement.  .  .  .  It  is  quite 
possible  that,  as  a  matter  of  cere- 
mony, or  by  way  of  asserting  her 
title  to  the  office,  she  (as  well  as  her 
ancestress  three  centuries  before)  may 
sometimes  herself  have  attended  the 
judges,  or  that,  in  accordance  with 
English  usage,  a  person  of  her  rank 
and  distinction,  when  present  in 
court,  may  have  been  invited  by  them 
to  sit  upon  the  bench.  But  tliat  she 
habitually  discharged  the  general 
duties  of  the  office  in  person  has  been 
shown  by  an  accomplished  scholar, 
after  careful  research,  to  be  highly 
improbable  in  fact.  4  Craik's  Ro- 
mance of  the  Peerage,  162.  And  she 
could  not  have  done  so  without  vio- 
lating the  well-settled  law. 
And  we  are  not  aware  of  any  public 
office,  the  duties  of  which  must  be 
discharged  by  the  incumbent  in  per- 
son, that  a  woman  Avas  adjudged  to 
be  competent  to  hold,  without  express 
authority  of  statute,  except  that  of 
overseer  of  the  poor,  a  local  office  of 
an  administrative  character,  in  no 
May  connected  M'itli  judicial  proceed- 
ings." 

11  See  Bradwell  r.  Illinois,  16  Wall. 
130,  21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  442,  per  Mr. 
Justice  Bradley;  Loclr-vood  r.  V.  S., 
9  Ct.  CI.  346 ;  In  re  Thomas,  16  Colo. 
441.  27  Pac.  707:  In  re  Bradwell,  55 
111.  535:  In  re  Maddox,  93  Md.  727, 
50  Atl.  487:  IVIatter  of  Kilgore.  14 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  30:  ^Matter  of  Kilgore, 


48 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


u 


been  admitted  to  practice  in  several  states,  not  because  of  the 
existence  of  any  statutory  authority  for  such  action,  but  because 
there  were  no  statutes  which  prohibited  it.^^  Assuming  that  those 
cases  were  rightly  decided,  we  must  then  conclude  either  that  there 
was  no  actual  inhibition  at  common  law/^  or,  if  it  were  otherwise, 
that  the  courts  have  disregarded  it  as  unsuited  to  our  present-day 


14  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  255;  In  re  Goodell. 
39  Wis.  232,  20  Am.  Rep.  42;  Tn  re 
French,  37  N.  Bruns.  359. 

In  the  Province  of  New  Briinsivick 
the  Supreme  Court  refused  an  appli- 
cation in  1905  to  admit  a  spinster 
as  an  attorney  of  that  court,  the  solo 
ground  being  that  her  right  to  be 
.idmitted  did  not  exist  at  common 
law,  and  she  was  not  a  "person"'  with- 
in the  meaning  of  the  act  of  assembly, 
1  Consolidated  Statutes,  1903,  chap. 
68,  sec.  13,  respecting  the  Barristers' 
Society  and  barristers,  attorneys,  and 
students-at-law.  In  re  French,  37  N. 
Bruns.  359.  Tuck,  C.  J.,  said:  "If 
this  young  lady  is  entitled  to  be  ad- 
mitted an  attorney  she  will  in  a 
year  be  entitled  to  be  called  to 
the  bar,  and,  in  a  few  years,  will 
be  eligible  to  be  appointed  to  the 
bench  ["If  that  be  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence, worse  things  might  happen," 
remarked  the  woman's  counsel].  As 
to  the  American  cases,  they  are  near- 
ly equal W  divided  and  give  no  help 
one  way  or  the  other.  The  decisions 
seem  to  be  based  on  ideas  which  pre- 
vail in  the  different  states."  Haning- 
ton,  J.,  said:  "It  seems  to  mo,  upon 
examination  of  the  Bi'itish  authori- 
ties, and  also  some  of  the  authorities 
in  the  United  States,  to  be  clearly  de- 
tcrniinod  that  females  are  not,  unless 
by  statutory  enactnicnl  onahling  it, 
qualified  to  bo  iiilniittccl  ;iui\  enrolled 
as  attoi'neys  of  our  eon  its.  Wo  fmd 
tliat  a  few  of  the  Initecl  States  courts 


^  have  determined  otherwise,  but  gen- 
erally it  has  been  declared  by  the 
courts  of  that  country  that  statutory 
authority  is  necessary  to  enable  a 
woman  to  be  admitted.  The  remedy 
in  this  case  is  with  the  legislature  and 
not  Avith  this  court.  Whatever  our 
individual  opinions  may  be  as  to  the 
advisability  of  extending  the  right  to 
women,  we  are  bound  by  the  law  of 
this  country  as  we  now  find  it."  Bar- 
ker, J.,  said:  "In  the  United  States, 
where  the  tendency  of  popular  opinion 
is  in  favor  of  extending  rather  than 
limiting  the  sphere  of  women's  work, 
there  seems  to  be  perhaps  not  a  uni- 
form, but  certainly  a  very  general 
consensus  of  judicial  opinion  against 
any  such  right  existing,  except  where 
it  has  been  specifically  conferred  by 
legislative  enactment.  .  .  .  It  is 
very  evident,  I  think,  that  neither 
this  court  in  any  of  the  rules  which 
it  has  made  or  sanctioned,  nor  the 
Barristers'  Society  in  the  rules  which 
it  has  made,  nor  the  legislature  in  en- 
acting chapter  68,  had  any  thought 
or  intention  of  making  the  radical 
change  now  suggested,  and  that  by 
every  rule  of  construction  applicable 
to  such  a  case  this  court  is  bound  to 
hold  that  no  such  change  baa  been 
made."  McLood  and  Gregory,  J  J., 
agreed  with  Barker.  .1. 

12  See  §  36  and  cases  thoroin  cited. 

13],,  ,-,>  Loach,  134  liui.  6li5,  34 
\.  I'].  •111.  2)  I..H..\.  701  (quoted  in 
the  note  following) . 


§  37] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


49 


needs,  as  they  have  done  in  many  other  instances.**  It  is  the  every- 
day experience  pi  the  judges  to  be  confronted  with  new  points  of 
law  which  never  have  arisen  before,  where  no  statutes  and  no  prece- 
dents exist  for  guides,  and  which  can  only  be  resolved  by  the 
application  of  general  rnles  of  justice  and  right  to  new  combi- 
nations of  facts.  Xot  only  so,  but  it  constantly  happens  that  the 
courts,  refusing  to  be  bound  by  some  antiquated  and  musty  prece- 
dent or  obsolete  rule,  lay  down  new  rules  more  conformable  to  the 
altered  opinions  and  habits  of  society,  and  the  new"  exigencies  of  a 
changing  civilization.*^     It  has  been  pointed  out  that  reasoning 


14  6  Am.  &  Eng.  Enc.  of  Law  (2d 
ed.)    286. 

"Custom  and  the  usages  of  West- 
minster Hall  granted  permission 
to  men.  Some  of  the  early  stat- 
utes of  England  granted  the  privilege 
to  men  who,  upon  examination  by  the 
justices,  were  found  to  be  'good  and 
virtuous  and  of  good  fame,'  and  when 
they  should  be  'sworn  well  and  truly 
to  serve  in  their  offices,  and  especially 
that  they  make  no  suit  in  a  foreign 
country,'  but  the  letter  of  such  stat- 
utes did  not  exclude  women.  The 
custom  and  usages  of  V»'estminster 
Hall  were  incident  to  the  prevailing 
order  of  society,  that  to  tlie  domestic 
sphere  only  did  the  functions  of 
womanhood  belong;  that  woman  had, 
and  could  have,  no  legal  existence 
apart  from  her  husband;  that  she 
could  not  engage  in  business  on  her 
separate  account,  could  make  no  con- 
tract without  the  consent  of  lier  hus- 
band; that  her  separate  earnings  be- 
longed to  her  husband;  that  woman, 
from  the  delicacy  of  her  nature,  was 
unfitted  for  the  activities  of  the 
sphere  occupied  by  men.  Such  of 
these  fictions  as  became  a  part  of  the 
law  of  this  country  are  rapidly  dis- 
appearing, and  few,  if  any.  of  them 
exist  in  Indiana.  It  need  not  be  con- 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 4. 


sidered  whether  we  have  adopted  the 
customs  and  usages  of  Westminster 
Hall  as  a  part  of  our  common  law. 
If  thej'^  were  the  incidents  of  these 
fictions,  they  have  vanished  with  the 
fictions.  The  other  learned  profes- 
sions of  this  state  are  open  alike  to 
the  sexes.  There  is  no  reason  for  an 
exception  of  the  legal  profession.  If 
nature  has  endowed  woman  Avith  wis- 
dom, if  our  colleges  have  given  her 
education,  if  her  energy  and  diligence 
have  lead  her  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
law,  and  if  her  ambition  directs  her 
to  adopt  the  profession,  shall  it  be 
said  that  forgotten  fiction  must  bar 
the  door  against  her?  Whatever  the 
objections  of  the  common  law  of  Eng- 
land, there  is  a  law  higher  in  this 
country,  and  better  suited  to  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  Amciican  cit- 
izens, that  law  which  accords  to  every 
citizen  the  natural  right  to  gain  a 
livelihood  by  intelligence,  honesty  and 
industry  in  the  ai'ts,  the  sciences,  the 
professions,  or  other  vocations.  This 
right  may  not,  of  course,  be  pursued 
in  violation  of  laws,  but  must  be  held 
to  exist  as  long  as  not  forbidden  by 
law."  In  re  Leach,  134  Ind.  667,  6fiS, 
34  X.  E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701. 

15  "When  courts  cannot  solve  su<  b 
questions    by    reference    to    bouks    or 


50  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§§    '38,  30 

predicated  upon  historic  cnstoin  or  usage  in  Enolaiid.  in  the  Amer- 
ican colonies,  and  in  the  republic  during  its  infancy,  possesses  the 
inherent  weakness  of  ignoring  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  the 
marvelous  changes  throughout  the  country  during  the  last  fifty 
years  in  the  legal  status  of  women. ^® 

§  38.  Right  to  Admission  under  Federal  Constitution  and 
Statutes.  —  The  Ignited  States  Supreme  Court  has  held  that 
under  no  provision  of  the  Federal  Constitution  is  a  woman  entitled 
to  be  admitted  by  the  courts  of  a  state  to  practice  laAV  in  those 
courts,  since  the  right  is  not  one  of  the  "privileges  and  immuni- 
ties" of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  also  because  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  legislator  to  prescribe  regulations  founded  on  nature, 
reason,  and  experience  for  the  due  admission  of  qualified  persons 
to  professions  and  callings  demanding  special  skill  and  confidence, 
fairly  belongs  to  the  police  power  of  the  state. ^'  An  Act  of 
Congress  passed  in  1879,^^  howcA^er,  provides  for  the  admission 
to  practice  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  of 
women  who  have  been  so  admitted  in  any  state,  or  in  the  District 
of  Columbia." 

§  39.  Legal  Arguments  for  and  against  Admission.  — 
In  favor  of  allowing  women  to  practice  law  under  old  statutes  the 
courts  have  reasoned  ( 1 )  that  every  word  importing  the  masculine 
gender  only,  may  extend  to  and  be  applied  to  females;  ^"^  (2)  that 
existing  statutes  should  be  construed  as  if  they  were  recently  enact- 

casos,  tlifv  iimst  dccidr  tlioiii  l)y  that  18  Act  of  Feb.  15.   ]S7n,  ch.  81,  20 

ccmnion    sense    of    justice    wiiicli     is  St.  L.  292,  1  Fed.  Stat.  Ann.  518. 

natural  to  man,  by  that  'right  reason  19  Law  Notes,  vol.  14,  p.  127    (Oct., 

conformable  to  nature'  of  which  Cic-  1010),  wherein  is  noted  the  fact  that 

•  •ro   sj)('al<s."     ]\Iatter    of    KilLiore,    14  a    married    woman    was    so   admitted. 

W.    X.    ('.    (Ta.t    4(!(;.    17    I'liila.    -SI,  and  tliat  she  M'as  the  thirty-sixth  who 

4  1   I.c^'.  int.  184.  liad    benefited   by   the   act. 

16  In    re   Thomas.    KJ   Colo.   441,   27  20  In   re  Thomas.    10   Colo.    441,   27 

I'ac.   707.    i:?   T-.R.A.   .l.'iS.  Pac.    707,    13    L.R.A.   ,'):38 :    I\latter   of 

17Brad\vill  r.  JlliiKiis.  KIWmII.  1;1(),  Kiljiore.    14   W.   X.   C.    (Pa.)    4G0,   17 

21    U.   S.    (L.    ed.)    M-2.    olJinninf/    ").')  I'hila.  281,  41   Leg.  Int.   184. 
IlL   .').■}"):    In    re    Lock.MK.d.    154    T.   S. 
110,  14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  I'.  S.    I  I.,  cd.) 
■.t2!). 


§  39] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


51 


ed,  and  not  with  reference  to  what  was  in  the  mind  of  the  legisla- 
ture at  the  time  of  their  enactment;  ^  (3)  that  all  statutes  are  to 
he  construed,  as  far  as  possible,  in  favor  of  equality  of  rights,  and 
that  all  restrictions  upon  human  liberty,  and  all  claims  for  special 
])rivileges,  are  to  be  regarded  as  having  a  presumption  of  law 
against  them ;  ^  (4)  that  the  status  of  women  has,  in  the  eye  of 
law,  and  in  popular  acceptation,  so  changed  as  not  only  to  permit 
their  admission  to  the  bar,  but  practically  to  demand  it.^     In  rcfus- 


iln  re  Hall,  50  Conn.  1:51,  47  Am. 
Rep.  625,  wherein  it  was  said:  "But 
if  we  hold  that  the  construction  of 
the  statute  is  to  be  determined  by  the 
admitted  fact  that  its  application  to 
women  was  not  in  the  minds  of  the 
legislators  wlien  it  was  passed,  where 
shall  we  draw  the  line';  All  progress 
in  social  matters  is  gradr.dl.  We 
pass  almost  imperceptibly  from  a 
state  of  public  opinion  that  utterly 
condems  some  course  of  action  to  one 
that  strongly  approves  it.  At  what 
point  in  the  history  of  this  change 
shall  we  regard  a  statute,  the  con- 
struction of  which  is  to  be  afi'ected 
by  it.  as  passed  in  contemplation  of 
it?  Wlien  the  statute  we  are  now 
considering  was  passed  it  probably 
never  entered  the  mind  of  a  single 
member  of  the  legislature  that  blaclc 
men  would  ever  be  seeking  for  admis- 
sion under  it.  Shall  we  now  hold  that 
it  cannot  apply  to  black  men?  We 
know  of  no  distinction  in  respect  to 
this  rule  between  the  case  of  a  stat- 
ute and  that  of  a  constitutional  pro- 
vision, ^^'lien  our  state  constitution 
was  adopted  in  1818  it  was  provided 
in  it  that  every  elector  should  be 
'eligible  to  any  office  in  the  state'  ex- 
cept where  otherwise  provided  in  the 
c(mstitntion.  It  is  clear  that  the  con- 
vention that  framed,  and  probably  all 
tlie    people   who    voted    to    adopt   the 


constitution,  had  no  idea  that  black 
men  would  ever  be  electors,  and  con- 
templated only  white  men  as  witliiii 
any  possible  application  of  the  pro- 
vision, for  the  same  constitution  pro- 
vided tliat  only  white  men  should  ne 
idectors.  But  now  that  black  men 
are  made  electors,  will  it  do  to  say 
that  they  are  not  entitled  to  the  full 
rights  of  electors  in  respect  to  hold- 
ing office,  because  an  application  of 
the  provision  to  them  was  never 
thought  of  when  it  Avas  adopted  ?" 

2  In  re  Hall,  50  Conn.  1.31,  47  Am. 
Rep.  625.  opinion  by  Chief  Justice 
Park.  Text  quotation  approved  in 
In  re  Leach.  134  Ind.  665.  071,  34  X. 
E.  641,  21  L.R.A.  701. 

3  In  re  Hall,  50  Conn.  131,  47  Am. 
Rep.  625. 

See  also  §§  36,  37. 

In  In  re  Tliomas,  16  Colo.  441,  444, 
27  Pac.  707.  13  L.R.A.  538.  tlie 
court  said:  "In  this  commonwealth 
women  of  sufficient  a!>e,  nuii'ried  or 
single,  may  make  contracts,  form 
partnerships,  inherit,  acquire  and  dis- 
]iose  of  property  in  all  respects  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  men.  The  pol- 
icy of  our  legislative  and  judicial 
action  has  tended  constantly  toward 
conferring  upon  them  the  same  i)r<)]i- 
erty  rights  and  business  status  as 
are  enjoyed  by  men.  They  may  un- 
doubtedly   pursue    all    vocations    .nnd. 


52 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  io 


ing  to  admit  women  to  practice  law  the  reasoning  employed  is 
practically  the  opposite  of  that  which  favors  their  admission  to 
the  bar.  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  women  are  generally  unfitted 
for  the  legal  profession ;  *  that  words  importing  the  masculine 
cender  in  the  statutes  cannot  be  read  so  as  to  include  women ;  * 
and  that  their  admission  was  never  contemplated  by  the  legis- 
lature.® So,  also,  women  were  denied  admission  because,  it  was 
said,  of  the  absence  of  statutory  authority  to  admit  them  to  the 
bar ;  '  or  because  of  prohibitory  language  in  existing  statutes,'  or 
in  the  constitution.^ 

§  40.  Nonlegal  Arguments  for  and  against  Admission.  — 
Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  speaking  for  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  declared  that  ''nature  herself  has  always  recogTiized  a  wide 
difference  in  the  respective  spheres  and  destinies  of  man  and 
woman;"  that  "the  constitution  of  the  family  organization,  which 
is  foimded  in  the  divine  ordinance,  as  well  as  in  the  nature  of 
things,  indicates  the  domestic  sphere  as  that  which  properly  be- 
longs to  the  domain  and  functions  of  womanhood;"  that  "the 
harmonv,  not  to  sav  identitv,  of  interests  and  views  which  belonc;. 


enterprises  of  a  business  character. 
They  may  also  become  ministers, 
pliysicians  or  educators,  and  if  any 
limitation  in  regard  to  the  learned 
professions  exists,  such  limitation  ap- 
plies solely  to  the  bar.  .  .  .  Hence 
we  contend  witli  none  of  tlie  diffaul- 
ties  encountered  by  the  courts  above 
mentioned  arising  from  the  disabili- 
ties of  women,  csijccially  married  wo- 
men, at  tlie  common  law.  Applica- 
tions like  the  one  ])efore  us  may 
tlierefore  be  regarded  with  the  ju- 
dicial favor  usually  extended  when 
equality  of  rights  is  involved,  unless 
some  restrictive  provision  be  found  in 
our  statutes  or  constitutions." 

4LocUwood  /•.  V.  S..  !l  Ct.  CI.  :!tt;i 
Tn   re  I'radwi'll,  .").")   111.  7t\\7-,. 

B  Lock  wood  r.  V.  S.,  f)  Ct.  CI.  .'{Hi: 


In   re  Maddox,   93   Md.   727,   50   Atl. 
487,  55  L.R.A.  298. 

6  In  re  Bradwell,  55  111.  535 ;  In  re 
Robinson,  131  Mass.  376,  41  Am.  Rep. 
239;  In  re  Leonard,  12  Ore.  93,  (i 
Pac.  426,  53  Am.  Rep.  323.  See  also 
Ex  p.  Criffin.  (Tenn.)  71  S.  W.  746; 
In  re  Coodell,  39  Wis.  232,  20  Am. 
Rep.  42. 

7  In  re  Bradwell,  55  111.  535;  In 
re  ^laddox,  93  Md.  727,  50  Atl.  487, 
55  L.R.A.  298;  In  re  Robinson,  131 
Mass.  376,  41  Am.  Rej).  239,  24  Alb. 
L.  J.  44S;  In  re  Leonard,  12  Ore.  93. 
6  Pac.  42(i.  53  Am.  Rep.  .323;  Ex  p. 
Griilin,    (Tenn.)    71    S.  W.  746. 

8  Tn  re  Maddox,  93  Md.  727,  50  Atl 
487,  55  L.R.A.  298    (right  confined  to 
male  citizens) . 

9  See  Lockwood  r.  U.  S.,  9  Ct.  01. 
346. 


§   40] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


53 


or  should  belong,  to  the  family  institution  is  repugnant  to  the  idea 
of  a  woman  adopting  a  distinct  and  independent  career  from  that 
of  her  husband ;"  and  iinally  that  "the  paramount  destiny  and 
mission  of  woman  are  to  fulfil  the  noble  and  benign  offices  of 
wife  and  mother"  and  ''this  is  the  law  of  the  Creator.''  ^°  That 
''the  laws  of  God,  or  for  those  who  deny  his  existence,  the  laws  of 
nature,"  distinctly  point  in  the  direction  indicated  by  Mr.  Justice 
Bradley  has  been  perceived  by  other  judges.^^  Mr.  Justice  Bradley 
also  intimated  that  ''decision  and  firmness  which  are  presumed  to 
predominate  in  the  sterner  sex"  are  qualities  recommending  men 
to  the  exclusive  privilege  of  practicing  law.'^^  But  ''there  are 
many  causes  in  which  the  silver  voice  of  woman  would  accomplish 
more  than  the  severity  and  sternness  of  man  would  achieve," 
argued  eminent  counsel  in  the  same  case.^^  "It  would  be  revolting 
to  all  female  sense  of  the  innocence  and  sanctity  of  their  sex,  shock- 
ing to  man's  reverence  for  womanhood  and  faith  in  woman,^*  on 


10  Bra  dwell  v.  Illinois,  16  Wall.  130, 
141,  21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  442  (Chief 
Justice  Chase  dissenting),  quoted  in 
In  re  French,  37  N.  Bruns.  359,  305. 

li:\Iatler  of  Kilgore,  14  W.  X.  C. 
(Pa.)  255,  per  Ludlow,  P.  J. 

"That  God  designed  the  sexes  to 
occupy  different  spheres  of  action,  and 
that  it  belonged  to  men  to  make,  ap- 
ply and  execute  the  laws,  was  regard- 
ed as  an  almost  axiomatic  truth.  It 
may  have  been  a  radical  error,  but 
that  this  was  the  universal  belief  cer- 
tainly admits  of  no  denial."  Per  Mr. 
Justice  Lawrence  in  In  re  Bradwell, 
55  111.  535,  539. 

"We  cannot  but  think  the  common 
law  wise  in  excluding  women  from 
the  profession  of  the  law.  .  .  .  The 
law  of  nature  destines  and  qualifies 
the  female  sex  for  the  bearing  and 
nurture  of  the  eliildren  of  our  race 
and  for  the  custody  of  the  homes  of 
the  Avorld  and  their  maintenance  in 
love   and    honor.     .     .     .     There   are 


many  employments  in  life  not  unlit 
for  female  character.  The  profession 
of  the  law  is  surely  not  one  of  these." 
Per  Chief  Justice  Ryan  in  Matter  of 
Goodell.  39  Wis.  232,  244,  245,  20 
Am.  Rep.  42. 

12  Bradwell  V.  Illinois,  16  Wall.  130, 
142,  21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  442. 

13  Argument  of  ]Matthew  Hale  Car- 
penter, in  Bradwell  ij.  Illinois,  IG 
Wall.  130,  137,  21  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   442. 

"A  union  of  the  pecr.liar  delicacy, 
refinement,  and  conscientiousness  at- 
tributed to  women,  with  the  decision, 
firmness,  and  vigor  of  man.  are  not 
only  desirable  but  necessary  in  pro- 
moting 'the  proper  administration  of 
justice'  in  our  courts."  Argument  of 
Miss  Goodell  in  Matter  of  Goodell,  39 
Wis.  232,  237,  20  Am.  Rep.  42. 

14  "A  sacrifice  of  all  those  qualities 
whicli  it  especially  behooves  us  all  to 
cherish  and  protect."  Per  Biddle,  J., 
in  :\ratter  of  Kilgore,  17  W.  N,  C. 
(Pa.)  562. 


54  ADMISSION    TO    riJACTICE.  [§40 

wliic'li  hinge  all  the  better  affections  and  humanities  of  life,  that 
woman  should  be  permitted  to  mix  professionally  in  all  the  nasti- 
ness  of  the  v.'orld  which  fiiids  its  way  into  courts  of  justice,"  in 
all  the  nameless  catalogue  of  indecencies  which  go  towards  filling 
judicial  reports  and  which  must  be  read  for  accurate  knowledge 
of  the  law,  and  "reverence  for  all  womanhood  would  suffer  in  the 
])nblic  spectacle  of  wonuni  so  instructed  and  so  engaged,"  said  a 
Wisconsin  Chief  Justice. ^^  But  "are  we  to  set  ourselves  to  the 
vain  task  of  attempting  to  turn  backward  the  wheel  of  time," 
and  are  we  "to  say  at  this  time  of  day  that  a  woman  shall  not 
be  permitted  to  pursue  the  vocation  to  which  her  tastes  lead  her, 
and  for  which  her  studies  have  qualified  her,  to  earn  her  bread 
in  any  respectable  calling  she  may  elect  to  pursue,  or  that  the 
profession  of  the  law  is,  of  all  the  professions  and  vocations  in  the 
world,  the  only  one  from  which  she  shall  be  excluded — the  only 
tree  of  knowledge  of  which  she  shall  not  eat?"'  queried  a  Pennsyl- 
vania judge. ^^  Anotlier  judge  in  the  same  state  remarked  that 
there  are  inherent  reasons  why  woman  should  be  admitted  t<i 
practice  law  growing  out  of  the  necessities  of  her  fellow-woman. 
and  proceeded  as  follows:  ''There  are  cases  involving  question i 
of  delicacy,  in  which  woman  would  rather  suffer  injustice  and 
wrong  than  confer  with  man.  There  are  also  questions  touching 
the  relations  of  the  wife  with  the  husband,  which  a  wife,  from 
motives  of  prudence  and  a  sense  of  wifely  propriety,  would  not 
cnuimunicate  to  a  man,  but  about  which  she  would  feel  at  liberty 
to  ad\isc  with  her  fellow-woman."  "  Admission  of  women  to  the 
l>ai'  would  constitute  an  "inversion,  so  to  speak,  of  the  order  of 

"WlictluT     ...     to  cnjrage  in  the  cliaractor     of     licr     sex."      Per     Lord 

liot  strifes  of  tlic  bar,  in  tlio  presence  Canipbell,  C.  J.,  in  Cobbctt  r.  Hudson, 

of  tiie  public,  and  with  momentous  ver-  LI  Q.  B.  OSS.  69  E.  C.  L.  988. 

diets  the  prizes  of  the  strujrsle,  would  15  Chief  Justice  Ryan  in  Matter  of 

not  tend  to  destroy  the  deference  and  Coodell,   39  Wis.   232,    240,    20    Am. 

delicacy  with  wliich  it  is  the  pride  of  Re]).  42. 

otir  rU(hM-  sex  to  tn.it  lur.  is  a  nini-  16  I'd-  Thayer,  P.  J.,  in  Matter  of 
tcr  certainly  worthy  of  licr  consider-  Kili^ore.  14  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  4fi(),  470. 
ation."  Per  Mr.  .Justice  Lawrence  in  l^  i'er  I'eirce,  J.,  dissontinp:  in  Mat- 
In  re  Bradwell,  5.",  111.  .•)3,-..  .'542.  ter    of    Kili^ore,    17    Phila.    (Pa.)     14, 

"To  wranfjle  at  nisi   iirivs  jiiid   en-  17,  4  1    Leg.  Int.  104. 
gage   in   Kcenes    ineoiisi^lciit   with    tiie 


§  40] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


55 


nature,"  "  would  tend  toward  "a  sweeping  revolution  of  social 
order,"  "  some  judges  have  said.  But  "such  persons  should  awake 
from  their  slumbers,"  for  "the  revolution  is  over,"  and  "its  results 
exist  to-dav  everywhere  and  all  around  us,  and  have  existed  long 
enough  for  a  moral  philosopher  to  write  its  history."  ^  One 
Pennsylvania  judge  was  fearful  that  the  advent  of  women  to  the 
bar  would  "produce  an  unnatural  competition  between  the  sexes, 
and  what  is  worse  a  condition  of  society  wherein  worthless  hus- 
bands, fathers,  sons,  and  brothers  will  depend  upon  the  exertions 
of  those  who  ought  to  receive  and  enjoy  that  protection  which 
nature  intended."  ^  But  "I  do  not  apprehend  much  danger  of 
the  bar  becoming  overrun  with  female  attorneys.  If  it  does  it 
will  but  prove  that  they  make  the  best  lawyers,  and  will  show  the 
wisdom  of  the  rule  admitting  them,"  said  another  judge  in  the 
same  state.  "Lawyers  of  a  few  years'  standing  at  the  bar,"  he  con- 
tinued, "will  be  able  to  recall  many  instances  in  their  practice 
where  the  services  of  a  sensible  female  attorney  would  have  been 
of  great  benefit  to  their  clients."  ^     "I  do  not  know  that  the  inno- 


18:Matter  of  Kilgoro,  14  W.  X.  C. 
(Pa.)    255,    256,    per    Ludlow,    P.    J. 

"I  have  been  at  the  bar  and  in  the 
military  service,  and  my  experience 
leads  me  to  the  conclusion  that  women 
are  as  well  fitted  for  the  one  as  for 
the  other.  .  .  .  Woman  as  a  sol- 
dier would  have  little  to  do  besides 
marching,  shooting,  and  being  shot. 
It  is  said  that  a  well-read,  intelligent, 
honest  woman  will  make  a  better  at- 
torney than  an  ignorant,  vicious  un- 
scrupulous man.  This  is  true;  but  it 
is  equally  true  that  a  healthy,  active 
woman  will  make  a  better  soldier 
than  a  decrepit  man."  Lockwood  r. 
U.  S.,  9  Ct.  CI.  34G,  354,  355,  per 
Judge  Nott. 

19  Per  Chief  Justice  Ryan  in  Mat- 
ter of  Goodell.  30  Wis.  232,  243,  20 
Am.   Hep.   42. 

iPer  Thayer.  P.  J.,  in  Matter  of 
Kilgore,  14  W.  X.  C.   (Pa.)  466,  470. 


2  Matter  of  Kilgore,  14  \V.  X.  C. 
(Pa.)  255,  256,  per  Ludlow,  P.  J. 

3  Per  Clayton.  P.  J.,  in  Matter  of 
Kilgore,  17  Phila.  (Pa.)  615,  616, 
41    Leg.  Int.  242. 

"If  the  practice  of  tlie  law  by  them 
is  not  found  agreeable,  lucrative,  or 
expedient,  they  will  not  seek  it,  and 
if  it  tends  to  enlarge  their  sphere  of 
usefulness,  or  to  elevate  and  refine 
the  bar,  it  ought  certainly  to  be  en- 
couraged. Women  now  preach  the 
gospel,  govern  colleges,  practice  med- 
icine, act  as  school  directors,  nota- 
ries public,  justices  of  the  peace,  and 
in  many  other  Avays  are  filling  posi- 
tions wliicli  were  not  open  to  tliem 
until  within  a  few  years.  .  .  . 
^ilontgomcry  county  cannot  aft"ord  to 
be  behind  in  any  movement  tliat  will 
open  a  new  and  honorable  field  for 
woman's  labor,  or  increase  Iier  op- 
portunities   for    advancement."      Per 


56  ADMISSIO]Sr    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    ^1 

vation  will  have  very  extensive  consequences  in  any  direction,"  * 
appears  to  be  a  fitting  conclusion  of  this  symposinm.  It  was  re- 
marked in  a  Xew  Hampshire  case  that  ''secrets  involving  all  that 
renders  life  valuable  are  confined  to  them  (attorneys)  npon  the 
mere  security  and  belief  that  they  will  not  violate  a  professional 
confidence.''  ^  Mr.  Justice  Brewer  said  that  "it  is  the  glory  of  our 
profession  that  a  man  may  safely  go  to  a  laM'yer  and  converse 
with  him  upon  his  rights  or  supposed  rights  in  any  litigation,  with 
the  absolute  assurance  that  that  lawyer's  tongue  is  tied  from  ever 
disclosing  it."  '^  In  some  of  the  statutes  it  is  declared  to  be  the 
duty  of  attorneys  "to  maintain  inviolate  the  confidence,  and  at 
every  j^eril  to  themselves  to  preserve  the  secrets,  of  their  clients."  ''' 
Curiously  enough,  in  view  of  the  professional  duty  thus  emphatic- 
ally stated,  while  courts  have  gone  to  the  limit  of  their  wits  in 
quest  of  arguments  against  the  expediency  of  admitting  women  to 
the  bar,  it  has  not  occurred  to  any  ingenious  and  facetious  judge 
to  suggest  a  peculiarly  relevant  female  frailty — if  Shakesjieare's 
authority  is  sterling: 

Portia. — I  have  a  man's  mind,  but  a  ^voman's  might. 
How  hard  it  is  for  women  to  Iceep  counsel  I 

Julius  Gcesar,  Act  II.,  sc.  4. 


Ediicaiion. 

§  41.  General  Education. — IN^o  one  can  profitably  enter 
upon  a  course  of  legal  studies  until  he  has  at  least  a  well-grounded 
English  education,  and  his  mind  is  well  stored  with  general  knowl- 
edge and  information.'  Proof  that  an  applicant  for  admission  to 
the  bill-  liiid  a  good  general  education  before  he  entered  upon  the 
study  of  law,  or  has  it  when  examined  for  admission,  is  now  ex- 
pressly required  by  statute  or  rule  of  court  in  nearly  all  of  the 

Weand,  C.  J.,    in    Richardson's    Case,  5  Bryant's  Case,  24  N.  IT.  149,  158, 

.3  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  2!)n,  .301.  per  Gilchrist,  C.  J. 

4  I'.r   Hare.   W  ('.,  granting  the  ap-  6  U.  S.  r.  Costen.  38  hVd.  24. 

|>lir;iiif>  Mint  inn  for  admission  to  the  7  See  §  92  et  sci\. 

bar,  in   Matter  of  Kilgore,   17   W.  N.  8  Matter    of    Pratt,     13    How.    Pr. 

C.  (Pa.)  r,r,3.  (N.  Y.)  1,  3. 


■il] 


ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE. 


67 


states ;  and  such  requirements  are  strictly  adhered  to.'    A  reason- 
ably strict  construction  is  placed  upon  statutory  provisions  designed 


9  Anonymous,  3  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
450;  Applications  for  Admission  to 
Practice,  14  S.  D.  429,  85  N.  W.  992. 

I'lii'  rules  of  the  Michigan  state 
l)oard  of  law  examiners,  requiring 
applicants  to  be  examined  in  tlie 
studies  ordinarily  required  for  gradu- 
ation from  high  schools,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  showing  of  such  graduation, 
etc.,  is  a  reasonable  exercise  of  the 
board's  power  to  determine  the  gen- 
eral qualifications  of  applicants.  In 
re  Alexander,  167  Mich.  495,  1.33  N. 
W.  491. 

Uniform  and  strict  enforcement  of 
the  rule  is  necessary  to  fulfil  its  pur- 
pose. Matter  of  Moore.  108  N.  Y.  280, 
15  N.  E.  369,  wherein  the  court  said: 
"It  was  clearly  its  intention,  by  re- 
quiring certain  intellectual  qualifica- 
tions on  the  part  of  students  when 
commencing  their  course  of  legal 
studies,  to  insure,  as  far  as  possible, 
the  attainment  of  the  ability  re- 
quired, when  finally  licensed  by  the 
court,  to  perform  the  responsible  and 
important  duty  of  advising  clients 
as  to  their  legal  rights  and  duties." 
See  also  Matter  of  Warde,  154  N.  Y^. 
342,  48  N.  E.  513. 

A"ew  York. — Rule  4  of  the  rules  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at 
law  provides:  "All  candidates  for 
admission  to  the  bar  upon  examina- 
tion, except  applicants  in  the  third 
class  mentioned  in  rule  3  (i.  e., 
persons  who  have  been  admitted  and 
liave  practiced  three  years  in  another 
state  or  country),  must  have  pursued 
a  preliminary  course  of  study  evi- 
denced by  graduation   from  a  college 


or  university,  or  by  passing  a  regents' 
examination  or  the  equivalent,  as 
hereinafter  prescribed.  Applicants 
who  are  not  graduates  of  a  college  or 
university,  subject  to  the  limitations 
and  requirements  hereinafter  in  tliis 
subdivision  expressed,  or  members  of 
the  bar  as  above  described,  before  en- 
tering upon  the  clerkship  or  attend- 
ance at  a  law  school  herein  prescribed 
shall  have  passed  an  examination 
conducted  under  the  authority  and 
in  accordance  with  the  ordinances 
and  rules  of  the  University  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  in  English, 
three  years;  mathematics,  two  years; 
Latin,  two  years;  science,  one  year; 
history,  two  years;  or  in  their  sub- 
stantial equivalents  as  defined  l)y  tlie 
rules  of  the  university;  and  shall 
have  filed  a  certificate  of  sucli  fact, 
signed  by  tlie  commissioner  of  educa- 
tion, with  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
return  to  the  person  named  therein 
a  certified  copy  of  the  same,  showing 
the  date  of  such  filing.  The  regents 
may  accept  as  the  equivalent  of  and 
substitute  for  the  examination  in 
this  rule  prescribed,  either,  first,  a 
certificate,  properly  authenticated,  of 
having  successfully  completed  a  full 
year's  course  of  study  in  any  college 
or  university;  second,  a  certificate, 
properly  authenticated,  of  having  sat- 
isfactorily completed  a  four  years' 
course  of  study  in  any  institution 
registered  by  the  regents  as  maintain- 
ing a  satisfactory  academic  standard; 
or,  third,  a  regents'  diploma.  All 
graduates  of  a  college  or  univer- 
sity   existing    under    the    government 


58 


ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE. 


[§  42 


to  raise  the  standard  of  qualifications,  in  order  to  promote  the  pur- 
poses of  their  enactment.^" 

§  42,  Purpose  of  Statutory  Requirements.  —  Attorneys  arc 
licensed  because  of  their  learning  and  ability,  so  that  they  may  not 
only  protect  the  rights  and  interests  of  their  clients,  but  be  able  to 
assist  the  court  in  the  trial  of  the  cause. ^^  Proper  qualifications 
to  practice  law  are,  therefore,  necessary  to  protect  the  courts,  the 
public,  and  the  profession  against  the  admission  of  incompetent  or 
unworthy  members.^^  Statutes  prescribing  educational  qualifica- 
tions for  admission  to  the  bar  are  enacted  in  a  spirit  of  liberality 
towards  suitors,  and  for  their  protection  against  the  practices  of 
any  one  who  might  seduce  their  confidence  and  induce  them  to 
trust  him  in  the  management  of  important  interests,  when  suitors 
could  not  possibly  ascertain  the  skill  and  qualifications  of  those 
in  whom  they  confided,  or  their  acquaintance  with  the  most  intri- 
cate, difficult  and  important  of  human  sciences.'^^  Federal  courts 
will  follow  the  construction  given  by  the  highest  court  of  a  state 


or  laws  of  any  foreign  country  other 
than  tliose  where  English  is  the  lan- 
guage of  the  people,  and  all  appli- 
cants who  apply  for  law  students' 
certificates  upon  equivalents  or  sub- 
stitutes, as  above  provided,  all  or  any 
part  of  which  are  earned  or  issued 
in  said  foreign  countries,  sliall  pass 
tiie  regents'  examination  in  second 
year  English.  The  regents'  certifi- 
cate above  prescribed  shall  be  deemed 
to  take  effect  as  of  tiie  date  of  the 
completion  of  the  regents'  examina-. 
tion,  as  tlie  same  shall  ajipcar  upon 
said  certificate." 

10  In  re  Admission  to  Bar,  01  Neb. 
r>H.  84  N.  W.  611;  Matter  of  Moore, 
108  N.  Y.  280,  15  N.  E.  309;  Matter 
of  Mason,  140  N.  Y.  058,  .35  N.  E. 
0.54;  Matter  of  Klein,  155  N.  Y.  i\'M\. 
50  X.  E.  111!);  Matter  of  Carutliers, 
l.-.S  X.  V.  l.'il,  52  \.  K.  7  12:  :\Iatter 
r.f  Simpson,  107  X.  Y.  40;!.  00  X.  K. 
747. 


11  Cobb  r.  Judge,  43  Mich.  289,  291, 
5  N.  W.  309,  per  Marston,  C.  J. 

12  Ex  p.  Coleman,  54  Ark.  235,  15 
S.   W.   470. 

"Restrictions  upon  the  privilege  of 
practicing  law  are  created  only  in 
the  interest  of  the  public  welfare, 
and  neither  for  nor  against  the  stu- 
dent." Per  Cartwright,  C.  J.,  in  In 
re  Day,  181  111.  73,  94,  54  N.  E. 
640,  50  L.R.A,  519. 

13  Per  Mr.  Justice  Scates  in  Robb 
V.  Smith,  4  111.  47. 

A  New  York  judge,  speaking  in 
1802,  said:  "Among  the  numerous 
incompetent  persons  whom  we  are 
compelled  to  see  in  the  courts,  invest- 
ed with  the  character  of  lawyers  un- 
der the  present  e  )nstitution,  which 
luis  made  it  substantially  impossible 
to  keep  anybody  out,  and  with  the 
Cixlc  of  I'l'ocedure,  which  is  supposiMJ 
to  render  its  practice  perfectly  easy, 
like  the  ac(iuisition  of  languages  un- 


§§    43,  44]  ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE.  59 

to  the  statutes  of  that  state  regiUating  the  granting-  of  licenses  to 
practice  law.^* 

§  43.  Indiana  Constitutional  Provision.  —  A  section  in  the 
Indiana  Constitution  provides  tliat  "Every  person  of  good  moral 
character,  being  a  voter,  shall  be  entitled  to  admission  to  practice 
law  in  all  courts  of  justice."  At  the  general  election  in  Novem- 
ber, 1900,  a  proposed  amendment  that  "the  General  Assembly  shall 
by  law  prescribe  what  qualifications  shall  be  necessary  for  admis- 
sion to  practice  law  in  all  courts  of  justice,"  was  submitted  to  the 
electors.  Nearly  100,000  more  votes  were  cast  for  the  amendment 
than  against  it.  But  it  did  not  receive  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast 
for  presidential  electors  and  governor.  The  Supreme  Court  held 
that  it  had  not  been  carried  by  the  constitutional  majority  required 
for  the  ratification  of  a  proposed  amendment,  and  therefore  that 
an  applicant  for  admission  to  the  bar  could  not  be  required  to 
submit  to  an  examination  as  to  his  mental  qualifications,  although 
a  statute  provided  (and  still  provides)  therefor.^* 

§  44.  Study  in  Law  School. — In  most,  if  not  all,  jurisdic- 
tions a  law  student  is  allowed  to  pursue  his  legal  studies  in  a  law 
school,  and  will  be  given  due  credit  therewith  upon  his  examina- 
tion ;  ^®  but  such  study  is  not  obligatory.     Xor  is  it  necessary  to 

der  certain  systems  without  a  master  York  Law  School,   ]90  N.  Y.  215,  S3 

and  without  study,  it  would  be  very  N.  E.  17. 

unwise  to  relax  any  of  the  protec-  The  local  rules  in  each  jurisdic- 
tion to  suitors  and  to  the  administra-  tion  must  be  consulted  for  definite 
tion  of  justice,  which  were  found  nee-  information  on  this  point, 
essary  in  better  days."  Per  Emott,  New  York. — Rule  5  of  the  rules  of 
J.,  in  Richardson  v.  Brooklyn,  etc.,  R.  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
Co.,  22  How.  Pr.  368,  371.  sion  of  attorneys    and    counselors  at 

14  In  re  Lockwood,  154  U.  S.  IIG,  law  provides:  "The  provisions  of 
U  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  those  rules  for  study  at  a  laAv  school 
929.  must  be  fulfilled  by  good  and  regular 

15  In  re  Denny,  156  Ind.  104,  59  attendance  and  successfully  complet- 
N.  E.  359,  51  L.R.A.  722  (decided  ing  the  prescribed  course  of  instruc- 
by  divided  court).  tion  at  an  incorporated  law  school,  or 

16  See  In  re  Admission  to  Bar,  61  a  law  school  connected  witli  an  incor- 
Neb.   58,   84   N.   W.   611;    In   re  New  porated  college  or  university,  having 


60  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    45 

graduate,  or  to  receive  a  degree,  from  a  law  school.  Thus  a  cer- 
tificate showing  that  a  student  had  snccessfnlly  completed  the 
prescribed  course  of  instruction  during  a  certain  period  was  held 
to  be  sufficient."  An  application  for  admission  to  the  bar  of 
Allegheny  county,  Pennsylvania,  containing  a  statement  of  gradu- 
ation at  the  law  department  of  A'ale  University,  was  pronounced 
defective  because  "lacking  in  precision  of  dates  to  show  how  much 
time"  the  applicant  passed  there. ■^^  It  is  quite  certain  that  a  merely 
honorary  degree  of  bachelor  of  laws  would  not  constitue  a  "^di- 
ploma," under  the  terms  of  any  of  the  state  statutes  employing  that 
word  in  regulations  for  admission  to  the  bar.  Thus  by  construction 
of  Louisiana  statutes,  it  was  held  that  a  resolution  passed  by  the 
executive  authorities  of  a  university  directing  its  president  to 
confer  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  laws  upon  persons  named,  and 
issue  to  them  the  usual  diplomas,  did  not  alone  operate  to  confer 
the  degrees  or  grant  the  diplomas.''^  An  ambiguity  in  a  statutory 
provision  shortening  the  term  of  study  or  service  for  the  benefit 
of  graduates  of  a  recognized  law  school  ought  to  be  resolved  in 
favor  of  the  applicant.^" 

§  45.   Study  in  Law  Office.  —  In  some  jurisdictions  it  is  still 
absolutely  necessary  for  a  student  to  spend  at  least  a  portion  of  his 

a  law  department  organized  with  com-  poses;   except  that  a  student  attend- 

petent  instructors  and  professors,   in  ing  a  law  school,  as  herein  provided, 

which   instruction  as  hereinafter  pro-  and    who,    during    the    vacations    of 

vidcd    is    rcLiularly    given.     (Jood    and  such     school,     not     exceeding     three 

regular     attendance     upon     and     the  months  in  any  one  year,  shall  pursue 

successful     completion     of     the     pre-  liis  studies  in  the  ofiice  of  a  practic- 

scribed    course    of    instruction    at    a  ing    attorney,    shall    be    allowed    to 

law  school,  the  school  year  of  which  count    the    time    so    occupied    during 

shall  consist  of  not  less  than  thirty-  such    vacation    or    vacations   as    part 

two  school   weeks,   exclusive  of  vaca-  of  the  clerkship  in  a  law  office  speci- 

tions,    in    which    not    less    than    ten  fled    in   these   rules." 

hours    of    attendance    upon    law    lee-  17  ^fatter  of  New  York  Law  Seliool, 

tures  or  recitations  of  such  prescribed  li'O  X.  Y.  215,  83  N.  E.  ]?. 

course,  to  be  given   or  conducted  by  18  Musgrave's    Case,    210     Pa.     St. 

regular  members  of  the   faculty,  are  ilDS,   003,  66   Atl.   84. 

required  in  each  week,  shall  be  deemed  19  State  v.  Marks,  30  La.  Ann.  07. 

a   y<!ar'B  attendance  under   this  rule.  20  Calder  v.  Law  Society,  9  Britisli 

The   same    period    of   time    shall    not  Columbia    50,    disapproving    King    r. 

lie     duplicated      for      dilferent     pur-  Law  Society,  8  British  Columbia  350. 


§  45] 


ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE. 


61 


time  in  the  office  of  an  attorney,  in  order  that  he  may  be  eligible  to 
take  the  examinations  for  admission  to  the  bar.  And  in  all  jnris- 
dictions  it  seems  that  such  study  may,  of  itself,  be  sufficient,  if 
pursued  in  accordance  with  the  local  rules  governing  the  subject, 
to  entitle  the  student  to  examination  and  admission,^  Studying 
law,  no  matter  how  diligently,  is  not  the  equivalent  of  a  regular 
clerkship  required  by  statute  or  a  rule  of  court.^  An  applicant 
who  had  graduated  at  the  Harvard  Law"  School,  after  three  years 
of  study,  was  denied  admission  to  the  bar  because  he  had  not  com- 
plied with  a  rule  requiring  at  least  a  year  of  study  in  the  office  of 
a  practicing  attorney.^  In  Nebraska  the  only  exception  made  to 
the  requirement  of  the  statute  for  two  years'  study  in  the  office  of 
a  practicing  attorney,  is  in  the  case  of  regular  graduates  of  the 
College  of  Law  of  the  University  of  iSTebraska ;  there  is  no  excep- 
tion in  favor  of  the  graduates  of  any  other  school  of  law.*  A 
statutory  requirement,  as  a  condition  to  the  granting  of  a  license, 
that  the  applicant  shall  obtain  a  certificate  from  attorneys  that  he 


1  It  has  been  said  that  "'nothing 
short  of  thorough  study  and  training, 
and  that  too  in  the  office  of  a  prac- 
ticing attorney,  will  ever  make  a 
lawyer.  As  well  might  the  surgeon 
become  qualified  to  practice  his  pro- 
fession away  from  the  subject,  the 
mechanic  to  acquire  his  art  by  the 
abstract  study  of  his  trade,  or  the 
chemist  away  from  his  laboratory,  as 
the  legal  student  to  become  qualified 
to  practice  by  merely  reading,  with- 
out practical  office  education."  Mat- 
ter of  Pratt,  13  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 
1,  .3. 

?\'eio  Yorlx. — Rule  6  of  the  rules  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at 
law  provides:  "The  provisions  of 
these  rules  for  studying  law  by  the 
service  of  a  regular  clerkship  must  be 
fulfilled  by  serving  such  clerkship  in 
the  office  of  a  practicing  attorney  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  this  state,  after 


the  candidate  has  attained  the  age  of 
eighteen  years.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of 
attorneys,  with  whom  the  clerkship 
shall  be  commenced,  to  file  a  certificate 
of  the  same  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals,  which  certificate 
shall,  in  each  case,  state  the  date  of 
the  beginning  of  the  period  of  clerk- 
ship, and  such  period  shall  be  deemed 
to  commence  at  the  time  of  such  fil- 
ing and  shall  be  computed  by  the 
calendar  year.  In  computing  the 
period  of  clerkship  a  vacation  actually 
taken,  not  exceeding  two  months  in 
each  year,  shall  be  allowed  as  a  part 
of  such  year." 

2  Dunn's  Application.  43  X.  J.  L. 
359,  30  Am.  Pvep.  600;  In  re  A.  B., 
3  Johns.    (X.  Y.)    261,  4  Johns.   191. 

3  McPherson's  Case,  5  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct.  22. 

4  In  re  Admission  to  the  Ear,  61 
Xeb.  58,  82  X.  W.  611. 


62 


ADMISSIOX    TO    PEACTICE. 


[§  45 


has  been  engaged  in  the  study  of  law,  etc.,  cannot  be  waived  by 
an  examining  committee  or  by  the  court.*  When  it  appears  on  the 
face  of  an  application  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  duly  regis- 
tered nor  served  a  clerkship  as  required  by  the  rules,  the  court 
will  not  refer  the  application  to  the  board  of  examiners.^  A  rule 
requiring  study  for  a  stated  period  "in  the  office  of  an  attorney 
and  counselor  at  law"  demands  that  the  study  of  law  during 
ordinary  business  hours  in  a  law  office  must  be  the  student's  chief 
occupation.  Other  employment  may  be  undertaken  out  of  office 
hours  or  in  vacation,  but  other  continuous  employment  during  the 
business  hours  of  the  day  is  not  compatible  with  such  a  course  of 
study  as  is  contemplated  by  the  rule.'  A  rule  of  court  requiring 
that  an  applicant  for  admission  to  the  bar  shall  have  served  a 
regular  clerkship  with  some  practicing  attorney  for  a  stated  period, 
is  not  satisfied  by  merely  studying  and  reporting  frequently  to 
the  attorney,  and  devoting  a  modicum  of  time  to  clerical  work  in 
the  office.*  A  clerkship  to  an  attorney  imports  the  office  of  assist- 
ant to  an  attorney,  an  actual  occupation  in  and  about  the  attor- 
ney's business  and  under  his  control.  The  service  is  to  be  ren- 
dered, not  solely  or  mainly  by  the  study  of  lawrbooks,  but  chiefly 
by  attending  to  the  work  of  the  attorney  under  his  direction. 
The  purpose  of  the  rule  is  that  the  clerk  shall  be  actually  engaged 


5  IVople  r.  Carr,  21  Colo.  525,  43 
T'ac.  128,  upliolding  the  refusal  of  a 
committee  to  admit  an  applicant  to 
examination  wlierc  he  presented  no 
certificate,  although  the  refusal  was 
not  based  upon  that  ground. 

6  Wilson's  Application,  0  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct.   302. 

7  In  re  Bosworth,  28  R.  T.  462,  fiS 
Atl.    316. 

8  In  re  Dunn,  4.3  N.  J.  L.  .35!),  3!) 
.\m.  Rep.  600,  wherein  the  court 
said:  "The  rule  is  a  very  old  one 
in  tliis  state.  It  is  found  among  tlie 
rules  as  revised  at  February  Term, 
1805,  and  printed  in  Cnxc.  p.  vi.  No 
doubt  it  was  derived  frdiii  i\\f  Imilt- 
lish  statutes  of  2  fico.  II..  ciiaps.  2.'!, 
46,    wliicli     r<ipiir((l    similar    service. 


Under  these  acts,  the  King's  Rencli 
struck  an  attorney's  name  from  tlie 
roll  because  it  appeared  that  he  bad 
not,  during  the  whole  time  of  his 
preliminary  clerkship,  been  actually 
employed  by  the  attorney  to  whom 
be  was  articled  in  the  proper  busi- 
ness, practice  or  employment  of  an 
attorney.  In  re  Taylor,  6  Dowl.  & 
R.  (Kng.)  428.  And  in  Ex  parte 
11  ill.  :  T.  R.  (Eng.)  452,  and  In  re 
Smitli,  10  Jur.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  30,  the 
alleged  service  was  deemed  insutti- 
cient  because  not  rendered  at  tlie 
place  of  business  of  the  master,  or 
one  presided  over  by  bim  or  some 
j)artiier  or  managing  clerk  rcjiresent- 
ing  iiini,  and  competent  to  instruct 
the  applicant." 


§    45]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  63 

in  the  practice  of  law  under  the  guidance  of  his  master  for  the 
stated  period,  so  that  by  direct  contact  with  an  attorney's  duties 
he  may  acquire  the  skill  and  facility  in  the  ])rofession  which  are 
necessary  for  enabling  him  to  protect  and  promote  independently 
the  interests  that  clients  may  afterwards  commit  to  him.  This  is 
the  sole  object  of  requiring  the  clerkship  to  be  served  with  a  prac- 
ticing attorney.^  In  Pennsylvania  a  rule  of  the  Court  of  ConniKin 
Pleas  provided  that  "no  person  shall  be  admitted  to  practice  .  .  . 
unless  he  shall  have  served  a  regular  clerkship,  within  the  state, 
to  some  attorney  or  gentleman  of  known  abilities,"  etc. ;  and  it 
was  held  that  serving  a  clerkship  with  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  was  a  sufficient  compliance  with  the  rule.^°  In  an  English 
case  deciding  that  the  service  of  an  articled  clerk  had  been  suffi- 
ciently subject  to  supervision,  the  court  said:  "Unquestionably  the 
supervision  and  personal  superintendence  of  the  master  is  essential 
to  good  service ;  but  these  matters  must  be  considered  with  relation 
to  the  particular  circumstances  of  each  case."  ^^  In  jSTebraska  a 
statutory  provision  requiring  two  years'  study  "in  the  office  of  a 
practicing  attorney"  was  construed  to  mean  an  attorney  residing 
and  practicing  in  ISTebraska;  for  the  reason  that,  (1)  such  an 
attorney  is  an  officer  of  the  [N^ebraska  court,  whose  standing  and 
character  is  or  easily  may  be  known  to  the  court,  (2)  he  owes 
to  the  l^ebraska  court  a  duty  which  is  not  obligatory  upon  the 
attorneys  of  another  state,  and  (3)  a  certificate  of  such  attorney, 
as  the  preceptor  of  the  applicant,  which  is  required  by  the  rules 
of  court  will  be  made  under  the  sanction  of  his  official  oath.^^  In 
the  computation  of  time  for  clerkship  the  oSTew  York  Supreme 
Court  called  four  terms  a  year,  but  insisted  on  the  full  number 
of  terms  in  fact,  without  allowing  the  filing  of  a  certificate  in 
vacation  to  relate  to  a  previous  term.^^  In  an  early  case  in  ]!^ew 
York  it  was  announced  that  if  a  person  commencing  a  clerkship  in 
an  attorney's  office  is  entitled  to  an  allowance  for  classical  studies, 
such   allowance   must  be   ascertained   and   settled   by  one   of   the 

9 /Vr  Dixon,  J.,  in  In  re  Dunn,  4."        Duncan.    10    Jur.    N.    S.    (En<r.)    930. 
N.  J.  L.  359,  39  Am.  Rep.  600.  12  I„   re  Admission   to  the  Bar,  61 

10  Com.  r.  .Tudges,  1  S.  &  R.    (Pa.)        Xeb.  58.  82  N.  W.  611. 

18T.  13  Ex  p.  Sayre,  7  Cow.   (N.  Y.)   3G8. 

11  Per    Cockburn,    C.    J.,    in    In    re 


64: 


ADMISSIOlSr    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  4G 


judges  at  the  commencement  of  the  clerkship,  and  will  not  be 
inquired  into  bj  the  court  when  application  is  made  for  examina- 
tion, and  that  if  special  circumstances  exist,  excusing  the  omission, 
application  should  be  made  to  one  of  the  judges  in  vacation,  and 
not  to  the  court  during  term.-^^  In  some  states,  however,  no  law 
ofSce  experience  is  required. 

Examination. 

§  46.  Necessity  of  Examination.  —  The  examination  of  ap- 
plicants for  admission  to  the  bar  is  an  absolute  necessity  in  order 
to  determine  whether  thev  possess  the  required  qualifications, 
especially  with  respect  to  their  education,  general  and  legal.  There- 
fore every  state  provides  in  some  appropriate  manner  for  such 
examination.^^    In  Indiana,  however,  it  seems  that  such  an  exam- 


14  Anonymous,  3  Wend.  (X.  Y.) 
456. 

15  See  In  re  Branch,  70  N.  J.  L. 
537,  57  Atl.  431;  In  re  Brewer,  3 
How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    169. 

Xew  York. — "The  Court  of  Ap- 
peals may  from  time  to  time  make, 
alter,  and  amend  rules  not  incon- 
sistent with  the  constitution  or  stat- 
utes of  the  state,  regulating  the  ad- 
mission of  attorneys  and  counselors 
at  law  to  practice  in  all  tiie  courts 
of  record  of  tlio  state."  Sec.  53, 
Judiciary  Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New 
York. 

"There  shall  be  examinations  of  all 
persons  applying  for  admission  to 
practice  as  attorneys  and  counselors 
at  law  at  least  twice  in  eacii  year 
in  each  judicial  department,  and  at 
such  other  times  and  places  as  the 
Court  of  Appeals  may  direct."  Sec. 
402,  Judiciary  Law,  Consol.  Laws  of 
Now  York. 

"Every  person  applying  for  exam- 
ination for  admission  to  practice  as 
an    attorney    and    counselor    at    law 


shall  pay  such  fee,  not  to  exceed 
fifteen  dollars,  as  may  be  fixed  by 
the  Court  of  Appeals  as  necessary  to 
cover  the  cost  of  such  examination. 
On  payment  of  one  examination  fee 
the  applicant  shall  be  entitled  to  the 
privilege  of  not  exceeding  three  ex- 
aminations." Sec.  4G5,  Judiciary 
Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New  York. 

Rule  3  of  the  rules  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  admission  of  attor- 
neys and  counselors  at  law  provides: 
"Three  classes  of  persons  may  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  bar  upon  examination: 

"1.  Persons  who  are  not  graduates 
of  a  college  or  iiniversity : 

"2.  Persons  who  arc  graduates  of 
a    college    or    university;    and 

"3.  Persons  who  have  been  admit- 
ted as  attorneys  and  have  practiced 
three  years  in  another  state  or  coun- 
t  ry. 

"In  each  class  the  applicant  must 
prove  by  his  own  afTidavit  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  staS;  board  of 
law  examiners  that  he  is  a  citizen 
of     the     United     States,     twenty-one 


4G] 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


6; 


ination,  though  provided  for  by  statute,  cannot  be  enforced  because 
of  a  peculiar  constitutional  provision  in  this  respect.^®  The  con- 
stitution of  New  Jersey  preserves  to  the  Supreme  Court  its  ancient 
power  to  examine  those  whom  it  recommends  to  the  governor  for 
his  license  to  practice  law,  and  this  power  in  relation  to  such 
recommendation  and  mode  of  appointment  is  not  subject  to  deroga- 
tion by  the  legislature.  Hence  a  statute  dispensing,  in  respect  of 
a  certain  class  of  applicants,  with  a  part  of  the  examination  re- 
quired by  the  rules  of  the  court,  was  pronounced  unconstitutional.^^ 


years  of  age,  stating  his  age,  and 
an  actual  and  not  a  constructive  res- 
ident of  the  state  for  not  less  than 
six  months  immediately  preceding, 
and  that  he  has  not  been  examined 
for  admission  to  practice  and  been 
refused  admission  within  four 
months,  and  that  he  has  studied  law 
in  the  manner  and  according  to  the 
conditions  in  these  rules  prescribed. 
Applicants  in  the  first  class  {i.  e., 
persons  who  are  not  graduates  of  a 
college  or  university)  must  have 
studied  law  for  a  period  of  four 
years.  Sucli  an  applicant  may  pur- 
sue his  course  of  law  study  wholly 
by  serving  a  clerkship  in  the  office 
of  a  practicing  attorney,  or  partly 
by  serving  such  clerkship  and  partly 
by  attending  a  law  school;  but  every 
such  applicant  must  serve  such  clerk- 
ship for  a  period  of  at  least  one 
year  continuously  either  before  ex- 
amination by  tlie  state  board  of 
law  examiners  or  after  such  exam- 
ination and  prior  to  admission  to  the 
bar.  Applicants  in  the  second  class 
( i.  e.,  persons  who  are  graduates  of  a 
college  or  university)  must  have 
studied  law  for  a  period  of  three 
years.  Such  an  applicant  may  pur- 
sue his  course  of  law  study  wholly 
by  serving  a  clerkship  in  the  office 
of  a  practicing  attorney;  or  wholly 
by  attending  a  law  school;  or  partly 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 5. 


by  serving  such  clerkship  and  partly 
by  attending  a  law  school.  Ap- 
plicants in  the  third  class  (i.  e., 
persons  who  have  been  admitted 
as  attorneys  and  have  practiced 
three  years  in  another  state  or 
country)  must  have  studied  law  for 
a  period  of  one  year  Avithin  this 
state  and  pursue  such  course  of  study 
either  by  serving  a  clerkship  or  by 
attendance  upon  a  law  school  as  the 
applicant  may  elect." 

Rule  2  of  the  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides: 
"Each  applicant  must  be  a  citizen  of 
the  state,  of  full  age;  he  may  be 
examined  in  any  department,  whether 
a  resident  thereof  or  not,  but  the 
fact  of  his  having  passed  the  exam- 
ination will  be  certified  to  the  Ap- 
pellate Division  of  the  Judicial 
Department  in  which  he  has  resided 
for  tlie  six  months  prior  to  his  ex- 
amination. He  must,  however,  enti- 
tle his  papers  in  the  department  in 
which  he  resides.  Note:  An  appli- 
cant must  appear  for  examination  in 
the  department  in  which  he  entitles 
his  papers,  unless  permission  of  the 
board  otherwise  be  granted  at  least 
fifteen  days  before  the  day  appointed 
for   holding  the   examination." 

16  See   §   43. 

17  In  re  Branch,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57 
Atl.  431. 


66  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    47 

But  one  avIio  has  been  duly  admitted  to  practice  by  an  inferior 
state  court,  pursuant  to  legislation  which  entitles  him  to  be  admit- 
ted to  practice  in  the  highest  court  of  the  state  without  further 
examination,  acquires  a  vested  right  of  which  he  cannot  be  de- 
prived by  subsequent  legislation  providing  for  examination  as  a 
condition  of  admission  to  the  highest  court. ^' 

§  47.  Who  Conducts  Examinations.  —  The  examination  of 
applicants  for  admission  to  the  bar  was  formerly  almost  exclusively 
within  the  supervision  of  the  courts,  and  it  is  still  so  where  it  has 
not  been  made  the  subject  of  statutory  regulation.  The  old  cus- 
tom was,  as  it  is  now  in  some  jurisdictions,  for  the  court  to  appoint 
a  board  of  examiners,  who  served  gratuitously,  before  whom  the 
applicants  appeared  and  submitted  their  qualifications  to  the  test 
provided  for  them.  In  the  majority  of  the  states,  however,  the 
complexity  resulting  from  the  growth  of  litigation,  as  well  as  the 
increase  of  general  business,  and  of  the  population,  rendered 
essential  a  systematic  and  careful  selection  of  those  who  were  to 
be  honored  with  the  privilege  of  being  allowed  to  practice  law. 
To  this  end,  therefore,  either  under  statute  or  rules  of  court,  every 
state  provides  either  a  board  or  committee,  or  some  other  equally 
appropriate  body,  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  examination 
of  law  students.  In  some  of  the  states  applicants  for  license  to 
practice  law  are  examined  by  the  highest  court  in  the  state,  in  a 
few  by  a  judge  or  the  judges  of  lower  courts,  aided  or  unaided  by 
a  committee  of  lawyers,  and  in  a  majority  of  states  the  examination 
is  conducted  by  boards  of  practicing  lawyers,  whose  appointment 
is  provided  for  in  various  ways  by  legislative  enactment,  but  is 
usually  vested  in  the  governor  or  the  court  of  last  resort. ■^^  In 
mript  jurisdictions  the  exaiiiiiiatif)ns  are,  to  a  large  extent  at  least, 

18  In  re  TIclwig,  5  S.  D.  272,  .IS  N.  10   Ann.   Cas.   187,   ;!;)   S.   E.   G35,   ]0 

W.    674;    In    ro   Application    tor    Ad-  L.K.A.(N.R.)     288.      Soe    also    In    re 

mission  to  rnu-ticf,  14  S.  D.  420.  85  0'J5rion,    79    Conn.    46,    63    Atl.    777; 

X.   \V.  '102.  People  v.  Bctts.   7   Colo.  453,   4   Pac. 

18  See   tlie    various    states    enumer-  42;    In  re  Application  for   Adinission 

ated  by  Clark,  C.  J.,  in  In  re  Appli-  to  Practice,   14  S.  D.  429,  84  N.  W. 

oants   for   License,   ]43   N.    C.   1,    18,  !J!)2. 


§  -iT] 


admissio:n^  to  i'ractice. 


C7 


reg-ulated  l)y  the  court  rules,   either  with  or  without  legislative 
authority;  ^°  indeed,  some  courts  have  held  that  undue  legislative 


20  \eic  York. — "Tlie  state  board  of 
law  examiners  is  continued.  Said 
board  sball  consist  of  Ibree  members 
of  tbe  bar,  of  at  least  ten  years' 
standing,  who  shall  be  appointed, 
from  time  to  time,  by  the  Court  of 
Appeals,  and  shall  hold  office  as  a 
member  of  such  board  for  a  term 
of  three  years,  and  until  the  appoint- 
ment of  his  successor."  Sec.  461, 
Judiciary  Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New 
York. 

"The  members  of  the  state  board 
of  law  examiners  shall  be  appoint- 
ed from  time  to  time,  by  the  Court 
of  Appeals,  as  provided  in  section 
four  hundred  and  sixty-one  of  this 
chapter.  The  Court  of  Appeals  shall 
(ix  the  compensation  of  the  members 
of  the  said  board."  Sec.  56,  Judici- 
ary Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New  York. 

"Upon  the  certificate  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners,  tliat  a  person 
has  passed  the  required  examination, 
if  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  in  the  department  in 
which  such  person  lives  shall  find 
such  person  is  of  good  moral  char- 
acter, it  shall  enter  an  order  licens- 
ing and  admitting  him  to  practice 
as  an  attorney  and  counselor  in  all 
courts  of  the  state."  Sec.  88,  Judi- 
ciary Law,  Consol.  Laws  of  New 
York. 

"The  state  board  of  law  examiners 
shall  certify  to  the  Appellate  Divi- 
sion of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  each  candidate  has 
resided  for  th(^  past  six  months  every 
person  who  shall  pass  the  examina- 
tion, provided  sucli  person  shall  have 
in   other   i-espects   complied  with   the 


rules  regulating  admission  to  prac- 
tice as  attorneys  and  counselors, 
which  fact  shall  be  determined  by 
said  board  before  examination.  Sec. 
463,  Judiciary  Law,  Consol.  Laws  of 
New  York." 

Rule  7  of  the  rules  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  admission  of  attor- 
neys and  counselors  at  law  provides: 
"The  state  board  of  law  examiners, 
before  admitting  an  applicant  to  an 
examination,  shall  require  proof  that 
the  preliminary  conditions  prescribed 
by  these  rules  have  been  fulfilled; 
which  proof  shall  be  madfe  as  follows, 
viz.: 

"First.  That  the  applicant  is  a 
college  graduate,  by  the  production 
of  his  diploma,  or  certificate  of  grad- 
uation, under  the  seal  of  the  college. 

"Second.  That  be  has  been  admit- 
ted to  the  bar  of  another  state  or 
country,  by  the  production  of  his 
license,  or  certificate,  executed  by  the 
])roper  authorities. 

"Third.  In  all  cases  where  the 
service  of  a  clerkship  is  required, 
that  he  has  served  a  regular  clerk- 
ship in  the  office  of  a  practicing  at- 
torney of  the  Supreme  Court  in  this 
state,  after  the  age  of  eighteen  years, 
by  producing  and  filing  Avith  the 
board  a  certified  copy  of  the  attor- 
ney's certificate,  as  filed  in  the  office 
of  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
and  producing  and  filing,  an  affidavit 
of  the  attorney  or  attorneys  with 
whom  such  clerkship  was  served, 
showing  the  actual  service  of  such  a 
clerkship,  the  continuance  and  end 
thereof,  and  that  not  more  tlian  two 
months'   vacation   was   taken   in    any 


68 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


[§    47 


interference  with  the  court's  supervision  in  this  respect  will  not 
be  tolerated.'^    An  examination  which  is  required  to  be  made  by  a 


one  year.  Both  of  said  affidavits 
must  be  to  the  eff'ect  that  during  the 
entire  period  of  such  clerkship,  ex- 
cept during  the  stated  vacation  time, 
the  applicant  was  actually  employed 
by  said  attorney  as  a  regular  law 
clerk  and  student  in  his  law  office, 
and  under  his  direction  and  advice, 
engaged  in  the  practical  work  of  the 
office  during  the  usual  business  hours 
of  the  day. 

"Fourth.  The  time  of  study  al- 
lowed in  a  law  school  must  be  proved 
by  the  certificate  of  the  teacher  or 
president  of"  the  faculty,  under  whose 
instructions  the  person  has  studied, 
under  the  seal  of  the  school,  if  such 
there  be.  in  addition  to  the  affidavit 
of  the  applicant,  which  must  also 
state  the  age  at  which  the  applicant 
began  his  attendance  at  such  law 
school.  Said  certificate  and  aflidavit 
must  also  show  that  the  law  school 
prescribes  the  course  of  instruction 
contemplated  by  these  rules,  and 
each  shall  also  contain  the  statement 
that  said  applicant  took  the  pre- 
scribed course  of  instruction  required 
at  said  school  for  the  degree  of  bach- 
elor of  laws  while  in  attendance 
thereat,  and  bona  fide  took  and  suc- 
cessfully passed  all  examinations  in 
all  the  subjects  retjuired  for  said  de- 
gree during  such  period  of  attend- 
ance, in  each  rase  sjieeifyiiig  tlie  sub- 
jects ill  wliich  said  aiipiicant  took 
and  passed  his  examinations  as  afore- 
said, wliieh  proof  must  be  satisfac- 
tory to  the  boar<l  of  examiners. 

"Fifth.  'i'liat  the  applicant  lias 
passed  the  regents'  examination,  or 
its  equivalent,  must  be  proved  by  the 


production  of  a  certified  copy  of  the 
regents'  certificate  filed  in  the  office 
of  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of  Appeals, 
as  hereinbefore  provided. 

"Sixth.  When  it  satisfactorily  ap- 
pears that  any  diploma,  affidavit,  or 
certificate  required  to  be  produced 
has  been  lost,  or  destroyed,  without 
the  fault  of  the  applicant,  or  has  been 
unjustly  refused  or  withheld,  or  by 
the  death  or  absence  of  the  person 
or  officer  who  should  have  made  it, 
cannot  be  obtained,  the  board  of  law 
examiners  may  accept  such  other 
proof  of  the  requisite  facts  as  they 
shall  deem  sufficient. 

"Seventh.  A  law  student  whose 
clerkship,  or  attendance  at  a  law 
school,  has  already  begun,  as  shown 
by  the  records  of  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals, or  of  any  incorporated  law 
school,  or  law  school  established  in 
connection  with  any  college  or  uni- 
versity, may,  at  his  option,  file  or 
produce,  instead  of  the  proofs  re- 
quired by  these  rules,  those  required 
by  the  rules  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
in  force  June  1,  190S." 

1  See  §§  28,  29.  See  also  In  re 
Branch,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57  Atl.  431. 

The  function  of  determining  wheth- 
er one  who  seeks  to  become  an  officer 
of  the  courts  and  to  conduct  causes 
tiierein  is  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
the  rules  established  by  the  legisla- 
ture and  the  courts,  governing  the 
rights  of  parties,  and  under  which 
justice  is  administered,  pertains  to 
the  courts  themselves.  They  must 
decide  whether  he  has  sufficient  legal 
learning  to  enable  him  to  apply  those 
rules   to   varying   conditions   of   fact. 


§  48] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


69 


committee  should  not  be  conducted  by  one  member  thereof  alone. 
The  examination  of  an  individual  committeeman  may  be  thorough 
and  satisfactory,  and  his  conclusions  in  the  premises  may  be  emi- 
nently just  and  accurate,  but  its  acceptance  and  indorsement  by 
his  associates  is  not  sufficient.^  By  construction  of  the  Colorado 
statutes  an  examination  for  admission  to  the  bar  can  be  made  only 
by  the  committee  of  the  district  in  which  the  applicant  resides;^ 
and  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  state  revoked  a  license  that  it  had 
granted  to  an  applicant,  when  it  appeared  that  his  certificate  of 
legal  proficiency  was  not  obtained  in  accordance  with  law,  an  ir- 
regularity which  would  have  prevented  the  issuance  of  the  license 
if  the  court  had  been  aware  of  it.* 

§  48.  Examining  Boards.  —  In  Florida  a  statute  creating  a 
board  of  legal  examiners  to  be  appointed  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
empowering  them  to  examine  applicants  for  admission  to  the  bar 
in  respect  to  their  intellectual,  moral,  and  professional  qualifica- 
tions, and  providing  that  the  board's  certificate  of  fitness  "shall 
entitle"   an  applicant  "to   practice  law   in   all   the  courts  of  the 


and  to  bring  the  facts  and  law  be- 
fore the  court  so  that  a  correct  con- 
clusion may  be  reached.  The  order 
of  admission  is  the  judgment  of  the 
court  that  he  possesses  the  requisite 
qualifications,  under  such  restrictions 
and  limitations  as  may  be  properly 
imposed  by  the  legislature  for  the 
protection  and  welfare  of  the  public. 
The  fact  that  the  legislature  may 
prescribe  the  qualifications  of  doc- 
tors, plumbers,  horseshoers  and  per- 
sons following  other  professions  or 
callings  not  connected  with  the  ju- 
dicial system,  and  may  say  what 
shall  be  evidence  of  such  qualifi- 
cations, can  have  no  influence  on  this 
question.  In  re  Day,  181  111.  73,  54 
N.  E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519. 

2  People  V.  Betts,  7  Colo.  453,  456, 
4  Pac.  42,  per  Helm,  J.;  People  v. 
Carr,  21  Colo.  525,  43  Pac.  128. 


3  People  r.  Betts,  7  Colo.  453,  4 
Pac.  42,  wherein  the  court  said :  '"The 
labor  of  those  who  serve  upon  these 
committees  is  entirely  gratuitous,  and 
it  would  be  unreasonable  and  unfair 
to  impose  upon  one  committee  the 
duty  of  examining  students  from  all 
parts  of  the  state.  ...  It  was 
hardly  the  legislative  intention  to 
give  each  candidate  the  privilege  of 
choosing  from  among  the  seven  dif- 
ferent committees  the  one  in  his 
judgment  most  likely  to  favor  his 
application;  the  one  made  up  of  ac- 
quaintances or  personal  friends,  or 
perchance  the  one  most  lax  in  its 
method  of  examination  and  in  the 
attainments  required." 

4  People  V.  Betts,  7  Colo.  453,  4 
Pac.  42. 


To  ADMISSIOlSr    TO    PRACTICE.  [§41) 

state,"  was  declared  invalid  because  the  members  of  the  board 
were  officers  that  the  Constitution  required  to  be  elected  by  the 
people  or  appointed  by  the  governor.*  Where  a  state  board  of  law 
examiners  is  authorized  by  statute  to  "make  such  rules  and  regula- 
tions relative  to  such  examination  as  to  them  may  seem  ])roper," 
a  large  discretion  is  thereby  invested  in  the  board  as  to  the  rules 
and  regulations  it  may  make  and  the  details  pertaining  thereto ; 
and  the  exercise  of  this  discretion  will  in  no  case  be  reviewed  by  a 
court  unless  it  should  clearl}^  apjDcar  that  an  abuse  has  occurred.^  A 
standing  committee  appointed  by  a  court,  pursuant  to  statutory 
provision,  for  examining  applicants  for  admission  to  the  bar,  may, 
for  their  own  convenience  as  to  time,  and  to  relieve  themselves  of 
unnecessary  labor,  without  surrendering  to  others  the  exercise  of 
their  own  judgment,  make  such  rules  and  regulations  for  the  ex- 
amination of  applicants  as  will  not  materially  interfere  with  or 
prejudice  the  rights  of  the  latter.'''  For  example,  if  the  statute 
provides  that  no  license  shall  be  granted  by  the  court  until  the 
applicant  has  obtained  a  certificate  from  attorneys  that  he  has 
been  engaged  in  the  study  of  law  for  a  specified  period,  the  stand- 
ing committee  may  make  and  enforce  a  rule  that  he  shall  not  be 
entitled  to  an  examination  by  them  until  he  presents  such  certifi- 
cate.* A  rule  of  a  board  of  examiners  adopted  at  a  regular  meet- 
ing and  entered  on  its  minutes  cannot  be  eifectually  modified  by 
a  subsequent  agreement  of  its  members  who  are  waited  upon  indi- 
vidually for  an  expression  of  their  views.' 

§  49.  Examination  of  Law  School  Graduates.  —  In  some 
states  laws  have  been  enacted  whereby  the  graduates  of  certain 

5  State  r.  Hockcr,  39  Fla.  477,  22  7  People  r.  Carr,  21  Colo.  525.  43 
So.  721.  63  Am.  St.  Rep.  174.  Pac.  128. 

6  Mitcliell  V.  State  Board  of  Law  8  People  v.  Carr,  21  Colo.  525,  43 
Examiners,  155  Mich.  452,  119  N.  W.  Pac.  128.  "For  it  would  be  a  waste  of 
587.  wlicrcin  the  court  said:  "The  re-  time,"  said  the  court,  "and  entail  un- 
Hults  of  the  work  of  tliis  board  under  necessary  labor  upon  tlie  committee, 
the  statute  in  elevating  the  standard  to  examine  applicants  who,  if  they 
of  proficiency  in  the  knowledge  of  the  succeeded  therein,  nevertlieless  would 
law  of  those  wlio  seek  to  be  admitted  not  be  entitled  to  a  license." 

to  practice  tlie  profession  in  this  state  »  McPherson's  Case,  5  Pa.  Dist.  Ct. 

lias   bfcn   Iiii'lilv   beneficial."  22. 


§    49]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  71 

law  schools  are  entitled  to  admission  to  the  bar  without  an  ex- 
amination; the  mere  presentation  of  their  diploma  being  in  itself 
sufficient  evidence  of  the  applicant's  knowledge  of  the  law.  Thus 
in  California  the  act  of  the  legislature  creating  Hastings  College 
of  the  Law  in  the  University  of  California  required  the  college 
to  affiliate  with  the  university  and  provided  that  a  student's  di- 
ploma shall  entitle  him  to  a  license  to  practice  in  all  the  courts  of 
the  state,  subject  to  the  right  of  the  chief  justice  of  the  state  to 
order  an  examination  as  in  ordinary  cases.  By  later  legislation 
the  several  district  courts  of  appeal  have  exclusive  power  to  grant 
licenses  to  practice  law;  and  it  has  been  held  that  an  applicant 
presenting  to  that  court  a  diploma  of  the  Hastings  College  of  Law 
must  be  admitted  without  an  examination  by  that  court,  and  with- 
out inquiring  whether  or  not  the  college  has,  as  a  matter  of  law, 
affiliated  with  the  university,  or  whether  or  not  the  faculty  of  the 
university  has  granted  the  diploma  which  the  applicant  holds.^° 
A  similar  statute  was  enacted  in  Louisiana. ^^  A  Xew  York  stat- 
ute making  the  diploma  of  the  law  school  of  Columbia  college  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  learning  and  ability  of  its  possessor,  was 
held  to  be  valid  under  a  provision  in  the  constitution  of  1846  en- 
titling certain  persons  to  admission  to  the  bar  "who  possess  the 
requisite  qualifications  of  learning  and  ability."  ^^      Statutes  of 

IC  In   re  Stiuloiits.   etc..    (Cal.)    110  [applicant]    should  be  evidence  upon 

Pac.  341.  the  question  of  age,  or  the  certificate 

11  State  r.  Marks,  30  La.  Ann.  97.  of   some   public   officer   upon   that   of 
Graduates  of  the  law  department  of  citizenship.     There   is  no  substantial 

the  University  of  Louisiana  must  ob-  difference,  in  respect  to  the  power  of 

tain    a    license    from     the     Supreme  the    legislature,    between    such    cases 

Court    before    they    are    entitled    to  and    that    under    consideration.     The 

practice  as  attorneys  at  law  in   any  diploma   simply   proves   that  the   ap- 

court  of  the  state.     The  statute  does  plicant  has  the  requisite  learning  and 

not  make  their  diploma  the  equivalent  ability,  but  leaves  the  facts  in  regard 

of  a  license.     An  order  of  the  Supreme  to     the     length     of     study,     the    age. 

Court,     however,     admitting    one    to  citizenship,  etc.,  of  the  applicant,  to  be 

practice  in  all  the  courts  of  the  state,  inquired  into  and  passed  upon  by  the 

is  equivalent  to  the  required  license.  court  in  determining  the  question  of 

In  re  Villere,  33  La.  Ann.  998.  admission." 

12  Matter  of  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  07.  This  statute  is  not  now  in  force, 
93,  11  Abb.  Pr.  301,  wherein  the  court  see  §  56  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.,  and 
said:  "The  legislature  might  have  §§  53,  56,  88.  460-465,  467,  title  Judi- 
provided    that    tlie    affidavit    of   the  ciary,  Consol.  Laws  of  Xew  York. 


72  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    "i^ 

the  character  under  consideration  have  not,  however,  met  with 
nnanimons  judicial  approval ;  thus  in  speaking  of  statutory  pro- 
visions partly  exempting  graduates  of  certain  law  schools  from 
the  operation  of  some  of  the  rules  of  court  regulating  applications 
for  admission  to  the  bar,  it  was  said  that  ''this  legislation  has 
manifestly  been  enacted  to  favor  the  fortunate  class  of  persons 
who  may  be  able  to  secure  admission  to  the  legal  profession 
through  the  easy  avenues  of  the  law  school,  while  those  who  are 
not  so  prosperously  situated  are  required  to  pass  their  three  years 
of  laborious  preparation  in  the  office  of  a  practicing  attorney ;" 
that  the  discrimination  is  neither  just  nor  fair;  that  '^discrimina- 
tions  of  this  nature  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  policy  of  the 
law  or  the  institutions  of  the  state ;"  and  that  ''they  create  invidi- 
ous distinctions,  and  are  justly  liable  to  be  regarded  as  harsh  and 
uncharitable  to  persons  who  are  incapable  of  availing  themselves 
of  the  privileges  secured  by  such  laws."  "  An  Illinois  statute 
gave  to  persons  presenting  diplomas  from  certain  law  schools  the 
right  to  admission  to  the  bar  without  the  examination  required  of 
other  applicants.  "jSTo  course  of  study  is  prescribed  for  the  law 
school,  but  a  diploma  granted  upon  the  completion  of  any  sort  of 
course  its  managers  prescribe  is  all-sufficient,"  was  the  court's 
summary  statement  of  the  statutory  provisions.  The  enactment 
was  declared  invalid  because  it  was  '^clearly  class  legislation,  pro- 
hibited by  the  constitution"  of  Ohio,  and  because  it  "assumed 
the  exercise  of  a  power  properly  belonging  to  the  courts,"  ^*  under 
the  constitution  of  the  state.'^^     A  ruling  to  the  same  effect  was 

13  Per  Mr.  Justice  Daniels,  in  IMat-  may  have  been  the  propriety  of  the 
ter  of  Burchard.  27  Hun  (N.  Y. )  429,  [earlier]  rule  admitting  the  holder  of 
4.38.  a  diploma  issued  by  a  law  school  to 

14  Roe  §§  28,  29.  praetice,   in   view   of  the   law   sclioola 
16  Tn   re  Day,  181   III.  7".  '>A  X.  E.       existing  at  its  adoption,  the  rule  had 

040,  .^0  L.TJ.A.  519  (by  a  diviih'd  become  an  alarming  menace  to  the  ad- 
court),  liiililiii;.'  that  no  graduates  of  ministration  of  justice.  .  .  .  Per- 
a  liiw  scliool.  iitilcss  tlicy  were  bearers  sons  were  admitted  who  had  been  only 
<jf  fori'iuii  licenses  to  practice,  could  iioini iially  in  attendance  for  the 
be  adtiiitted  without  i)riiof  of  pre-  stipulated  jieriod  of  time  ujion  schools 
liminary  general  education  and  pass-  of  a  very  different  grade.  There  was 
ing  examination  as  i-ei|uire(l  liy  llic  ik)  state  supervision  of  law  scliools, 
rules  of  tlie  Su[iri'ine  (oint.  (Iiicf  mid  ;iiiy  person  wlio  saw  lit  <-(iuld 
.Fu>-ficc  f  art  wriglit  said:      "\\liate\er  <iigaiiize  a    law   school,  anil   Iiy   a(I\ci'- 


§   50] 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


73 


made  in  Xew  Jersey  ^^  in  a  case  arising  nnder  a  similar  statute. 

§  50.  Character  of  Examination.  —  The  character  of  the 
examination  which  shall  be  adopted  to  test  the  student's  knowl- 
edge must,  of  necessity,  be  largely  discretionary  with  the  exam- 
iners. Thus  they  may,  and  do,  require  examinations  to  be  ex- 
clusively written,  or  entirely  oral,  or  a  combination  of  both.  A 
positive  statutory  requirement,  or  rule  of  court,  would,  of  course, 
bind  the  examiners  in  this  as  in  all  other  respects.  The  sub- 
jects upon  which  the  applicant  must  be  examined  are,  especially 
of  late  years,  fixed  by  rule  of  court,  or  a  rule  of  the  board  of  ex- 
aminers, or,  in  some  instances,  by  statute.^^     Under  statutes  or 


tising  that  the  diplomas  admitted  to 
the  bar  could  obtain  students.  The 
language  of  the  proviso,  'any  law 
school  regularly  organized  under  the 
laws  of  this  state,'  is  mere  sound  and 
means  nothing.  ...  In  view  of 
the  disastrous  consequences  to  the 
profession  and  the  public,  the  rule  by 
which  it  was  only  a  step  from  the 
diploma  mill  to  the  bar  was  changed, 
and,  in  an  eflfort  to  discharge  a  duty 
to  the  public,  the  general  standard  of 
admission  was  raised." 

16  In  re  Branch,  70  N.  J.  L.  537,  57 
Atl.  431. 

17  Thus  the  Alabama  Code,  1907, 
§  2973,  provides  as  follows:  "The 
members  of  the  board  shall,  at  such 
meetings,  propound  in  writing,  to 
sucli  applicants,  a  sufficient  number  of 
questions  to  thoroughly  test  their 
learning  upon  the  following  subjects : 

1.  Of  tlie  law  of  real   property. 

2.  Of  tlie  law  of  personal  property. 

3.  Of  the  law  of  pleading  and  evi- 
dence. 

4.  Of  the  commercial  law. 

5.  Of  tlie  criminal  law. 

6.  Of  chancery  and  chancery  plead- 


7.  Of  the  statute  law  of  the  state. 

8.  Of    professional    ethics. 

9.  Of  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  state  of  Alabama. 

10.  Of  the  political  history  of  the 
United  States  and  of  the  formation 
of  constitutional  governments  there- 
in." 

See  also  the  Rules  of  the  Superior 
Court  of  Connecticut  adopted  Decem- 
ber, 1907,  and  amended  June,  1910; 
No.  4  of  the  Rules  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Vermont  for  the  Admission 
of  Attorneys,  77  Atl.  viii;  Rules  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  Texas,  96  Tex. 
637. 

The  rule  adopted  by  the  Michigan 
board  is  as  follows:  "The  board  of 
examiners  will  regard  applicants  who 
have  received  bachelor's  degrees  from 
any  reputable  college  or  university, 
as  having  prima  facie  the  requisite 
general  educational  qualifications  for 
admission  to  the  bar.  A  similar  pre- 
sumption will  be  made  in  favor  of  all 
graduates  of  normal  or  high  schools 
of  the  state  of  Michigan,  or  other 
reputable  institutions  of  a  similar 
character.  A  recent  teacher's  certifi- 
cate,  issued   by   any  board  of   school 


74 


admissions'  to  pkactice. 


[i 


■>o 


examiners  in  the  state  of  Michigan 
for  the  first  grade,  or  higher,  will 
also  be  accepted  as  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  general  educational  require- 
ments. In  the  absence  of  such  evi- 
dence, to  be  sent  to  the  secretary  with 
application,  candidates  for  admission 
to  the  bar  will  be  examined,  before 
taking  the  legal  examination,  in  tlie 
ordinary  studies  required  for  gradua- 
tion from  the  high  schools  of  ^liclii- 
gan,  and  particularly  upon  the  sub- 
jects of  arithmetic,  grammar,  ele- 
mentary algebra,  general,  American 
and  English  history,  civil  govern- 
ment, composition  and  rhetoric,  and 
English  literature."  In  re  Alexander, 
167  Mich.  495,  133  N.  W.  491. 

Xeio  York. — Eule  8  of  the  rules  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at 
law  provides :  "The  examination  held 
by  such  state  board  of  examiners 
may  be  conducted  by  oral  or  written 
questions  and  answers,  or  partly  oral 
and  partly  written,  but  shall  be  as 
nearly  uniform  in  the  knowledge  and 
capacity  which  they  shall  require,  as 
is  reasonably  possible.  Every  appli- 
cant shall  be  given  and  required  to 
pass  a  satisfactory  examination  in  the 
canons  of  ethics  adopted  by  the 
American  Bar  Association  and  by  the 
Xew  York  State  Bar  Association.  An 
applicant  who  has  failed  to  pass  one 
examination  cannot  again  be  ex- 
amined until  at  least  four  moiitlis 
after  sucli  failure." 

Rule  (i  of  tiio  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides: 
"The  board  will  divide  the  subjects  of 
examination  into  two  groups,  as  fol- 
lows: group  one,  Pleading  and  I'rac- 
tice  and  Evidence;  group  two,  Sul)- 
stuntivc  Law,  viz.  Real  Rroi)erty, 
C'oiitract.s,     Partm-rsliii),      Nfgotialilc 


Paper,  Principal  and  Agent,  Principal 
and  Surety,  Insurance,  Bailments, 
Sales,  Criminal  Law,  Torts,  Wills  and 
Administration,  Equity,  Corporations, 
Domestic  Relations,  Legal  Ethics  and 
the  Constitutions  of  New  York  State 
and  of  the  United  States.  Each  ap- 
plicant will  be  required  to  obtain  tlie 
requisite  standard  in  both  groups  and 
on  his  entire  paper  to  entitle  him  to 
a  certificate  from  the  board.  If  he 
obtains  the  required  standard  in 
either  group  and  not  on  his  entire 
paper  he  will  receive  a  pass  card  for 
the  group  which  he  passes  and  will 
not  be  required  to  be  re-examined 
therein.  He  will  be  re-examined  in 
the  group  in  which  he  failed,  or  on 
the  entire  paper  if  he  failed  in  both 
groups,  at  any  subsequent  examina- 
tion for  which  he  is  eligible  and  for 
which  he  gives  notice  as  required  by 
these  rules.  Note:  Applicants  should 
file  their  papers  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment;  amendable  defects  may  be 
discovered,  which  can  be  corrected  if 
attended  to  promptly." 

Rule  1  of  the  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides: 
"Each  applicant  for  examination 
must  file  with  the  secretary  of  the 
board,  at  least  fifteen  days  before  the 
day  appointed  for  holding  the  exami- 
nation at  which  he  intends  to  apply, 
the  preliminary  proofs  required  by 
the  rules  of  the  Court  of  Appeals 
for  tli(^  admission  of  attorneys  and 
counselors  at  law,"  from  wliich  it 
must  appear  alTirmatively  and  spe- 
cifically that  all  tlie  preliminary  con- 
ditions prescribed  by  said  rules  have 
been  fulfilled,  and  also  proof  of  the 
residence  of  the  applicant  for  six 
montlis  prior  to  the  date  of  tlie  said 
examination,  giving  place,  with 
street     and     number     if     anv,     which 


§  50] 


ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE. 


to 


must  be  made  by  his  own  affidavit. 
Said  affidavit  must  also  state  that 
such  residence  is  actual  and  not  con- 
structive. The  board  in  its  discretion 
may  order  additional  proofs  of  resi- 
dence to  be  filed,  and  may  require  an 
applicant  to  appear  in  person  before 
it,  or  some  member  tliereof,  and  be 
examined  concerning  his  qualifi- 
cations to  be  admitted  to  the  exami- 
nations. The  examination  fee  of  $15 
must  be  paid  to  the  treasurer  at  the 
time  the  application  for  examination 
is  filed.  To  entitle  an  applicant  to  a 
re-examination,  he  must  notify  the 
secretary  by  mail  of  his  desire  there- 
for, at  least  fifteen  days  before  the 
examination  at  which  he  intends  to 
appear,  and  file  with  him,  at  the  same 
time,  his  own  affidavit  stating  that  he 
is  and  has  been  for  the  six  months 
prior  to  such  examination  an  actual 
and  not  constructive  resident  of  this 
state,  giving  the  place  of  such  resi- 
dence, and  street  and  number  if  any." 
Rule  3  of  the  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides: 
"In  applying  the  provisions  of  rules 
3  and  7  of  the  rules  of  the  Court 
of  Appeals  for  the  admission  of  at- 
torneys and  counselors  at  law,  the 
board  will  require  proof  that  the  col- 
lege or  university  of  which  an  appli- 
cant claims  to  be  a  graduate,  main- 
tains a  satisfactory  standard  in  re- 
spect to  the  course  of  studies  com- 
pleted by  him.  In  case  the  college  or 
university  is  registered  with  the 
board  of  regents  of  the  state  of  New 
York  as  maintaining  such  standard, 
the  applicant  must  submit  to  the 
board,  witli  his  diploma  or  certificate 
of  graduation,  the  certificate  of  the 
said  board  of  regents  to  that  effect, 
which  will  be  accepted  by  this  board 
as   prima  facie  evidence  of  the  fact. 


Such  certificate  need  not  be  filed  in 
cases  where  the  board  of  regents,  by  a 
general  certificate,  has  certified  to 
tliis  board  that  the  said  college  or 
university  maintains  a  satisfactory 
college  standard  leading  to  the  degree 
with  which  the  applicant  graduated. 
In  all  other  cases  the  applicant  must 
submit  with  his  diploma  or  certificate 
of  graduation  satisfactory  proof  of 
the  course  of  study  completed  by  him 
and  of  the  character  of  the  college  or 
university  of  which  he  claims  to  be  a 
graduate." 

Rule  4  of  the  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides: 
''The  papers  filed  by  each  applicant 
must  be  attached  together,  and  there 
must  be  indorsed  upon  them  the  name 
of  the  applicant.  The  papers  must  be 
entitled,  'In  the  matter  of  the  appli- 
cation of for  admission 

to  tlie  bar.'  Each  applicant  must 
state  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
each  term  spent  in  a  law  school,  his 
age  when  he  began  his  attendance 
upon  tl)e  law  school,  as  well  as  the 
beginning  and  the  end  of  each  va- 
cation tliat  he  has  had." 

Rule  5  of  the  rules  of  the  state 
board  of  law  examiners  provides : 
'"An  applicant  who  has  been  admit- 
ted to  the  bar  as  an  attorney  in  an- 
other state  or  country,  and  who  has 
remained  therein  as  a  practicing  at- 
torney for  tlie  period  of  three  years, 
may  prove  the  latter  fact  by  his  own 
affidavit,  and  must  present  also  a 
certificate  from  a  judge  of  the  court 
in  which  he  was  admitted,  or  from  a 
county  judge  in  said  state,  certifying 
that  the  applicant  had  remained  in 
said  state  or  county  as  a  practicing 
attorney  for  said  period  of  three 
years,  after  he  had  been  admitted  as 
an   attornev  therein.     The   signature 


76 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  50 


rules  of  court  requiring  a  fixed  and  extended  time  of  clerkship  in 
the  office  of  a  practicing  attorney, ^^  the  severity  of  a  subsequent 
examination  of  an  apjdicant  might,  with  safety  and  propriety,  be 
considerably  mitigated.  But  if  possession  of  the  requisite  quali- 
fications of  learning  and  ability  is  alone  required,  the  examina- 
tion prescribed  should  be  full,  complete,  and  thorough. ^^  Where 
the  statute  requiring  examinations  by  a  standing  committee  makes 
no  exception  in  favor  of  students  in  or  graduates  of  a  law  school, 
there  would  be  no  objection  to  the  adoption  by  the  committee  of 
the  examination  prescribed  by  the  faculty  of  the  school  as  the  ex- 
amination of  the  committee ;  but  the  determination  by  the  com- 
mittee of  the  right  of  an  applicant  for  a  license,  be  he  student  or 
not,  must  not  be  made  to  depend,  in  any  degree,  on  the  judgment 
of  the  faculty  of  the  school,  however  that  judgment  is  ascertained, 
or  however  sound  it  may  be,  but  the  granting  or  withholding  of  a 
certificate  must  be  based  upon  the  judgment  of  the  committee,  as 
a  result  of  their  independent  judgment  upon  whatever  test  is 
made,  although  their  judgment,  in  the  case  of  a  student,  may  be 
aided  and  informed  by  an  examination  of  the  answers  to  ques- 
tions propounded  by  the  faculty. '^^ 


of  the  judge  must  be  certified  to  by 
the  clerk  of  the  court  or  by  the 
county  clerk  under  the  seal  of  the 
court." 

The  Xew  York  Court  of  Appeals 
recently  instructed  the  state  board  of 
law  examiners  to  so  frame  the  ques- 
tions pro])ounded  to  candidates  for 
admission  to  practice  as  to  permit  of 
a  reasoned  answer  to  each  question, 
and  so  to  formulate  their  questions, 
whetiier  based  upon  decided  cases  or 
upon  statutes,  as  to  ascertain  tlie 
ability  of  tiie  candidate  to  apply  his 
knowledge  of  legal  principlrs  and  of 
statutory  iiilcs.  and  to  explain  the 
iiK'tliod  of  tiifir  application  by  him, 
rather  than  to  elicit  answers  the  cor- 
rectness of  which  will  rest  ujioTi  the 
i'an<lidat<''s     [)o\\cr    <jf     nicinoii/iitioii. 


Tlie  court  also  said  that  the  mark- 
ing of  a  candidate  should  be  measured 
by  his  reasoning  power,  and  not 
wholly  by  the  mere  correctness  of  his 
answers.  Order  of  April  17,  1913, 
Vol.  V.  Bench  and  Bar  N.  S.  (May, 
191.3)  40. 

18  See  §  45. 

19  In  re  Pratt.  13  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
1;  In  re  New  York  Law  School,  190 
X.  Y.  215,  83  N.  E.  17. 

20  People  V.  Carr,  21  Colo.  525,  43 
Pac.  128,  holding  that  an  agreement 
between  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee that  they  would  give  certifi- 
cates to  those  students  who  passed  the 
examination  jirescribed  by  the  faculty, 
ami  w  itlihold  certificates  from  such  as 
failed,   could  not  be  sanctioned. 


.S§    51-53]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  77 

§  51.  Percentage  Required  to  Pass.  —  The  percentage 
necessary  to  pass  the  examination  is  usually  fixed  at  seventy-five. 
But  here  also  the  examiners  have  a  discretionary  latitude,  unless 
the  passing  mark  is  fixed  by  statute  or  rule  of  court.  A  rule  made 
by  a  state  board  of  law  examiners  that  ''candidates  will  be  re- 
quired to  answer  correctly  at  least  seventy  per  cent,  of  all  ques- 
tions upon  each  subject"  is  not  repugnant  to  a  statutory  provision 
that  an  applicant  "shall  be  required  to  answer  a  minimum  of 
seventy  per  cent,  of  the  questions  given  him  to  entitle  him  to  the 
certificate  of  the  board,"  and  is  indeed  a  correct  interpretation  of 
the  statute,  for  *'it  was  not  intended"  by  the  legislature  ''that  a 
candidate  would  be  considered  entitled  to  admission  who  had  not 
a  passing  standing  in  one-third  of  the  subjects  submitted  for 
examination."  ^ 

§  52.  Personal  Presence  of  Applicant.  —  Statutes  which 
carefully  provide  for  examination  of  applicants,  especially  if  the 
examination  is  to  be  in  open  court,  fairly  import  that  the  exami- 
nation cannot  proceed  without  the  personal  presence  of  the  appli- 
cant, and  a  rule  of  court  could  not  authorize  an  examination  in 
his  absence.^  jSTor  would  a  rule  of  court  providing  for  examina- 
tion be  relaxed  to  that  extent  even  if  the  court  had  power  thus  to 
indulge  an  applicant.^ 

Requirements  Subsequent  to  Examination. 

§  53.  Application  for  Admission.  —  Having  passed  the  ex- 
amination and  received  a  certificate  to  that  effect,  it  is  still  neces- 
sary that  the  student  shall  be  regularly  admitted  and  licensed  be- 
fore he  can  enter  upon  the  duties  of  an  attorney  at  law.     The 

1  Mitcliell   r.    State   Board   of   Law  to  53,  so  that  lie  was  given  an  average 

Examiners,  15.5  Mich.  452,  119  N.  W.  of  62  per  cent. 

587,  wliere  the  applicant,  whose  ex-  2  Ex  p.  Snelling,  44  Cal.  553,  where 
amination  was  held  to  have  been  the  court  declined  to  depart  from  its 
properly  pronounced  unsatisfactory,  rule  because  of  a  physical  injury  sus- 
had  been  examined  upon  twenty-three  tained  by  the  applicant  which  tempo- 
different  subjects,  in  fifteen  of  which  rarily  prevented  his  personal  appear- 
his  percentage  of  correct  answers  was  ance. 
from  70  to  85,  and  in  eight  from  20  3  Ex  p.  Snelling,  44  Cal.  553. 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[i 


usual  procedure  for  this  purpose  is  the  presentation  to  the  court 
of  an  apjilication  for  admission  to  the  bar.  Such  application  must 
be  accompanied  by  the  certificate  of  the  examiners,  and  such  other 
moving  papers  as  are  required  to  show  the  court  that  the  appli- 
cant is  eligible  and  qualified,  including  a  showing  as  to  his  good 
moral  character.  On  the  presentation  of  such  evidences  of  fitness 
the  court,  usually  on  the  motion  of  some  member  of  the  bar  of 
recognized  standing,  admits  the  applicant,  who  thereupon  takes 
the  required  oath.  The  foregoing  is  merely  an  outline  of  the  prac- 
tice generally  prevailing:  each  jurisdiction  has  its  own  laws  and 
rules  on  this  subject,  and  these  are  constantly  changing  to  meet 
the  exigencies  of  the  times.  In  making  application  for  admis- 
sion to  practice,  however,  all  local  requirements  must  be  strictly 
complied  with.'* 


4  Xew  York. — Rule  1  of  the  general 
rules  of  practice  provides:  "An  ap- 
plicant for  admission  to  practice  as 
an  attorney  and  counselor  at  law  on 
motion,  under  the  provisions  of  rule 
2  of  the  rules  of  the  Court  of  Ap- 
peals for  the  admission  of  attorneys 
and  counselors  at  law,  must  present 
to  the  court  proof  that  he  has  been 
admitted  to  practice  as  an  attorney 
and  counselor  at  law  in  the  highest 
court  of  law  in  another  state,  or  in  a 
country  whose  jurisprudence  is  based 
upon  the  principles  of  the  common 
law  of  England;  a  certificate,  exe- 
cuted by  the  proper  authorities,  that 
he  has  been  duly  admitted  to  prac- 
tice in  such  state  or  country;  that  he 
has  actually  remained  in  said  state  or 
fountry,  and  practiced  in  such  court 
as  attorney  and  counselor  at  law  for 
at  least  three  years;  a  certificate 
from  a  judge  of  such  court  that  he 
lias  been  duly  admitted  to  practice 
anfi  lias  actually  continuously  prac- 
ticed as  an  attorney  and  counselor 
at  law  for  a  period  of  at  least  three 
vcars    after    he    has    been    ad  in  if  ted. 


specifying  the  name  of  the  place  or 
places  in  which  he  had  so  practiced, 
and  that  he  has  a  good  character  as 
such  attorney.  Such  certificate  must 
be  duly  certified  by  the  clerk  of  the 
court  of  which  the  judge  is  a  member, 
and  the  seal  of  the  court  must  be  at- 
tached thereto.  He  must  also  prove 
that  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  and  has  been  an  actual  resi- 
dent of  the  state  of  New  York,  or  of 
an  adjoining  state,  for  at  least  six 
months  prior  to  the  making  of  the  ap- 
plication, giving  the  place  of  his  resi- 
dence by  street  and  number,  if  such 
there  be,  and  the  length  of  time  he 
has  been  such  resident.  He  shall  also 
submit  the  affidavits  of  two  persons 
who  are  residents  of  the  judicial  dis- 
trict in  which  he  resides,  one  of  whom 
must  be  an  attorney  and  counselor 
at  law,  that  he  is  of  such  character 
and  general  fitness  as  justifies  admis- 
sion to  practice,  and  the  adidavit 
must  set  forth  in  detail  tlie  facts  upon 
which  the  affiant's  knowledge  of  the 
applicant  is  based.  In  all  cases  the 
apj)licant  must  a])pear  in  person  be- 


§   54] 


ADMISSION    TO    PEACTICE. 


§  54.  Oath  of  Office.  —  It  is  universally  required  that  a 
license  to  practice  law  shall  not  be  granted  until  the  applicant  has 
taken  an  oath,  the  terms  of  which  are  set  forth  formally  in  some 
of  the  statutes,  and  described  in  others;^  and  occasionally  the 


fore  tlie  court  on  the  motion  for  his 
admission,  and  also  before  the  com- 
mittee on  character  and  fitness  for  the 
district  in  which  the  application  is 
made.  When  the  applicant  resides  in 
an  adjoining  state,  and  a  motion  is 
made  to  admit  him  to  practice  in  this 
state  without  actual  residence  herein, 
in  addition  to  the  foregoing  facts  the 
applicant  must  prove  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  court  that  he  has 
opened  and  maintains  an  office  in  this 
state  for  the  transaction  of  law  busi- 
ness therein.  In  all  cases  the  applicant 
for  admission  must  file  with  the  clerk 
of  the  Appellate  Division  of  the  proper 
department  the  papers  required  for 
his  admission  as  hereinbefore  speci- 
fied prior  to  or  at  the  time  of  the 
motion  for  admission  to  practice." 

Rule  3  of  the  rules  of  the  Court  of 
Appeals  for  the  admission  of  at- 
tornej's  and  counselors  at  law  pro- 
vides :  "Candidates  for  admission  to 
the  bar  under  this  rule  (i.  e.,  upon 
examination)  may  be  admitted  and 
licensed  upon  producing  and  filing 
with  the  court  the  certificate  of  the 
state  board  of  law  examiners  that  the 
applicant  has  satisfactorily  passed 
the  examination  prescribed  by  these 
rules  and  has  complied  witli  their 
provisions,  and  upon  producing  and 
filing  with  the  court,  in  the  case  of 
applicants  in  the  first  class  (/.  e., 
persons  who  are  not  graduates  of  a 
college  or  university),  evidence  that 
he  has  served  a  regular  clerkship  of 
one  year  in  this  state  with  an  at- 
torney or  attorneys  in  regular  prac- 


tice, either  before  or  after  having 
passed  such  examination.  Tlie  appli- 
cant must  also  produce  and  file  evi- 
dence that  he  is  a  person  of  good 
moral  character,  which  must  be 
shown  by  the  affidavits  of  two  reputa- 
ble persons  of  the  town  or  city  in 
which  he  resides,  one  of  whom  must 
be  a  practicing  attorney  of  the  Su- 
preme Court.  Such  affidavits  must 
state  that  the  applicant  is,  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  affiant,  a  person  of 
good  moral  character,  and  must  set 
forth  in  detail  the  facts  upon  Avliich 
such  knowledge  is  based;  but  such 
affidavits  shall  not  be  conclusive, 
and  the  court  may  make  further 
examination  and  inquiry.  If  the 
applicant  be  a  graduate  of  a  col- 
lege or  university,  he  must  have 
pursued  the  prescribed  course  of  law 
study  after  his  graduation,  and  if 
lie  be  a  person  admitted  to  the  bar  of 
another  state  or  country,  he  must 
have  pursued  his  prescribed  period  of 
law  study  after  having  remained  as 
a  practicing  attorney  in  such  other 
state  or  country  for  the  period  of 
three  years." 

5  "He  is  an  officer  and  is  required 
to  take  an  oath  of  office  which  has  re- 
mained without  substantial  modifi- 
cations since  the  time  of  Lord  Holt." 
In  re  :\Iaddox,  93  Md.  727,  731,  50 
Atl.  487,  55  L.R.A.  298. 

The  right  of  a  licensed  attorney  to 
be  periuitted  to  qualify  upon  taking 
the  oaths  required  by  law  at  the  time 
of  his  application  for  admission  is  as 
unquestioned  as  his  right  to  practice 


80  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    ^4 

oath  to  be  administered  is  foinid  in  the  constitution,  to  which  the 
statute  refers.  In  rare  instances  the  statute  merely  adopts  for  at- 
torneys the  oath  administered  to  all  public  officers,  but  generally 
the  oath  required  is  one  specially  devised  for  attorneys  at  law. 
The  common  provisions  that  it  shall  be  administered  in  open  court, 
shall  be  reduced  to  writing,  subscribed,  preserved  in  the  records 
of  the  court,  indorsed  on  the  certificate  of  admission,  and  the  like, 
and  the  infliction  of  a  large  pecuniary  penalty  for  practicing  be- 
fore taking  the  oath,^  indicate  that  the  taking  of  an  oath  was  re- 
garded by  the  legislators  as  far  more  than  a  mere  formality.  A 
typical  statutory  form  of  oath  is  the  following:  '^I  do  solemnly 
swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  demean  myself  as  an  attorney  ac- 
cording to  the  best  of  my  learning  and  ability,  and  with  all  good 
fidelity,  as  well  to  the  court  as  to  the  client;  that  I  will  use  no 
falsehood  or  delay  any  person's  cause  for  lucre  or  malice,  and  that 
I  will  support  the  constitution  of  the  state  of  Alabama  and  of 
the  United  States,  so  long  as  I  continue  a  citizen  thereof,  so  helji 
me  God."  ' 

Where  a  statute  prescribes  the  terms  of  the  oath  to  be  exactcil 
before  a  person  shall  be  admitted  to  practice,  no  court  has  the  right 
to  require  attorneys  already  licensed  after  taking  the  statutory 
oath  to  take  another  oath  imposing  additional  obligations.®  And 
where  a  state  constitution  establishes  one  oath  for  all  offices  and 
for  every  public  trust,  and  the  station  of  attorney  or  solicitor  is 
judicially  determined  to  be  an  '^office"  or  "public  trust,"  ^  it  is  not 
competent  for  the  legislature  to  require  any  other  oath  from  him, 
according  to  a  decision  in  Xew  York.^°  On  the  other  hand,  it  was 
declared  in  California  that  if  there  is  no  provision  of  the  consti- 
tution directly  restricting  the  legislature  from  exercising  plenary 

after   lio  has   so  qualified.     Ex  parte  8  Champion     v.     State,     3     Cokhv. 

Quarrier,  2  W.  Va.  569.  (Tenn.)   111. 

6  For    instance,    by    Alabama    Code  9  See  conflicting  authorities  on  tiiat 

1!»()7,  §  20HO,  "lie  forfeits  the  sum  of  point,  supra,   §§    14,    15. 

two   Jiundred    (hdlars,"   recoverable   in  10  Matter  of  Wood,   Hopk.    (N.  Y.) 

a  (jui  tain  actiaii.  (i.       Cotnpare    Matter    of    Attorneys' 

7'ihe  text  is  copied  from   Alabama  Oaths,  20  Johns.    (N.  Y.)    492. 
(O.le.    1!)()7,  §  2978.     See    also    infra, 
tliis    section,    note    15,    the    Oklahoma 
uatii. 


f 


§    54]  ADMISSION    TO    PBACTICE.  81 

power  in  respect  of  the  oath  of  attorneys,  no  such  restriction  arises 
by  implication.^^ 

If  a  licensed  attorney — a  fortiori  an  applicant  for  admission  to 
practice — refuses  to  take  the  oath  required  by  a  valid  statute,  a 
court  may  properly  decline  to  recognize  him  as  the  representative 
of  a  litigant  therein. ^^ 

An  attorney  expressly  bound  by  his  official  oath  to  behave  him- 
self with  all  due  fidelity,  to  the  court  as  well  as  the  client,  violates 
it  when  he  consciously  presses  for  an  unjust  judgment;  for  it  is 
a  popular  but  gross  mistake  to  suppose  that  a  lawyer  owes  no 
fidelity  to  any  one  except  his  client,  and  that  the  latter  is  the  keep- 
er of  his  professional  conscience. ^^  Likewise,  an  attorney  retained 
by  a  private  prosecutor  and  representing  the  official  prosecutor 
'pro  hac  vice  in  a  criminal  case,  is  restrained  by  the  oath  taken 
upon  his  admission  to  practice,  and  ought  not  to  press  for  con- 
viction when  he  entertains  a  sincere  belief,  based  on  credible  evi- 
dence, that  the  defendant  is  innocent.^*  In  a  case  w'here  a  writ- 
ten license  to  occupy  land  was  made  subject  to  termination  on 
notice,  and  a  notice  bearing  the  signature  of  the  licensor  by  "its 
attorneys,"  naming  them,  was  duly  served,  the  court  said  that  if 
the  attorneys  acted  without  authority  in  that  behalf  it  would  con- 
stitute a  violation  of  their  oaths  as  attorneys. ■^^  One  untoward 
consequence  of  an  attorney's  violation  of  his  oath  might  be  the 
institution  of  proceedings  for  his  suspension  or  disbarment,  since 

11  Ex  p.  Yale,  24  Cal.  241,  85  Am.  do  no  falsehood  or  consent  that  any 
Dec.  G2.  be  done  in  court,  and  if  you  know  of 

12  Cohen  v.  Wright,  22  Cal.  293 ;  any  you  will  give  knowledge  thereof 
Ex  p.  Yale,  24  Cal.  242,  85  Am.  Dec.  to  the  judges  of  the  court  or  someone 
t)2.  of  them,  that  it  may  be  reformed;  you 

13  Per  Gibson,  C.  J.  in  Rush  v.  shall  not  wittingly,  willingly,  or  know- 
Cavenaugh,  2  Pa.  St.  187.  ingly   promote,  sue  or  procure   to   be 

14  Rush  v.  Cavenaugh,  2  Pa.  St.  187.  sued,  any  false  or  unlawful  suit,  or  give 

15  Dictum  in  Nolan  v.  St.  Louis,  aid  or  consent  to  the  same;  you  shall 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  19  Okla.  51,  91  Pac.  1128,  delay  no  man  for  lucre  or  malice,  but 
an  action  for  possession  of  the  prop-  shall  act  in  the  office  of  attorney  in 
erty,  founded  on  the  notice.  An-  this  court  according  to  your  best 
thority  to  institute  the  action  was  learning  and  discretion,  with  all  good 
not  questioned.  The  oath  required  of  fidelity  as  well  to  the  court  as  to 
an  attorney  in  Oklahoma,  as  in  many  your  client."  Comp.  Laws  Okla. 
other  states,   recites  that  "you   shall  1909,  §  255. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 6. 


82  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    55 

the  several  obligations  expressed  in  the  oath  are  nnqnestionably 
''duties,"  and  this  is  a  word  frequently  used  in  the  sweeping 
clause  of  statutes  enumerating  grounds  for  suspension  or  re- 
moval. ^^ 

§  55.  Duelling  Oath.  —  jSTot  long  after  Alexander  Hamilton 
was  slain  bj  Aaron  Burr,  some  of  the  state  legislatures  took  a 
step  toward  the  suppression  of  the  polite  and  fashionable  prac- 
tice of  duelling  ^"^  by  the  enactment  of  statutes  requiring  every 
''officer,''  or  specifically  every  applicant  for  admission  to  the  bar, 
to  take  an  oath  that  he  had  not  been  engaged  in  a  duel,  or  sent  or 
accepted  a  challenge,  and  would  not  thereafter  do  so."  By  con- 
struction of  words  and  phrases  in  the  Virginia  statute  it  was  held 
not  to  include  applicants  for  admission  to  practice  law,^^  one  of 
the  judges  also  expressing  the  opinion  that  any  statute  imposing  a 
new  oath  on  public  officers,  although  there  be  no  pecuniary  pen- 
alty inflicted  on  those  who  refuse  to  take  it,  must  be  regarded  as 
a  penal  statute  and  therefore  given  a  strict  construction.^"  The 
Alabama  statute  was  pronounced  invalid  on  the  ground  that  a 
citizen  had  a  constitutional  right  to  aspire  to  office  or  pursue  any 
lawful  vocation,  and  could  not  be  deprived  of  that  right  without  a 
trial  by  jury,  and,  moreover,  because  the  disqualification  created 
by  the  statute  was  a  punishment  beyond  the  reach  of  executive 
clemency.^  The  !New  York  statute  was  upheld  as  against  the  pro- 
visions in  a  constitution  subsequently  adopted,  the  court  holding 
that  the  latter  did  not  impliedly  repeal  the  former.^ 

16  For  example,  Okhihoiiia  Coinp.  .lohns.  (N.  Y.)  492;  Leigh's  Case,  1 
Laws,  3909,  §  266  provides:  "The  (Ind.)  483;  In  re  Attorneys,  20 
following  are  sufficient  causes  for  sus-       Munf.   (Va. )   468,  486. 

pension  or  revocation:     .     .     .    Tliird,  19  Leigh's  Case,  1  Munf.   (Va.)   468. 

for  tlie  wilful  violation  of  any  of  tiie  20  Pcr  Fleming,  J.,  in  Leigh's  Case, 

duties  of   an   attorney  or   counselor."  ]    Munf.    (Va. )    468.  486. 

See  infra.  §  77:5  ft  seq.  1  Matter  of  Dorscy,  7   Port.    (Ala.) 

17  "A     great     moral     and     growing  29.3    (by  a  divided  court). 

evil."     Per  Tucker,  . J.  in  Lcigir.s  Case,  2  :\[atter    of    Attorneys,    20    Johns. 

1    -Munf.    (\'a.)   468,480.  (x.     Y.)     492.       Contra,    Matter    of 

".Matter  of  Dorsey.  7  I'ort.  (Ala.)  Wood,  Hopk.   (N.  Y.)   6. 
29.3,    3.55;     In    re    J51ake,    1     BlacKf. 


§§    5G,  57]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  83 

§  56.  Test  Oaths.  —  During  the  Civil  War,  or  immediately 
thereafter,  Congress  and  some  of  the  state  legislatures  passed  acts 
requiring  every  attorney  or  counselor,  or  applicant  for  admission 
to  the  bar,  to  take  an  oath  that  he  had  not  borne  arms  against  the 
United  States  or  otherwise  supported  the  organized  enemies  there- 
of.' Many  of  these  acts  were  held  void  as  being  practically  for 
the  punishment  of  past  conduct,  and  therefore  ex  post  facto  laws, 
and  also  as  being  in  conflict  with  the  general  pardon  granted  by 
the  President.*  In  Tennessee  it  was  held  that  a  statute  requiring 
courts  to  administer  to  "all  officers"  an  oath  abjuring  the  ku-klux- 
klan  association  was  inapplicable  to  attorneys  at  law,  especially 
those  who  had  already  been  regularly  licensed  to  practice,  and 
that  it  did  not  authorize  a  rule  of  court  subjecting  them  to  its 
provisions.* 

§  57.  Enrollment  or  Registration.  —  As  a  rule  the  order  of 
the  court  admitting  one  to  practice  as  an  attorney  at  law  is  forth- 
with entered  of  record,  and  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  registration ; 
but  further  enrollment  may,  of  course,  be  imposed  by  statute,  or 
even  by  a  rule  of  court.  Thus  in  ISTew  York  one  who  has  been 
admitted  to  practice  must  file  with  the  clerk  of  the  Court  of 
A.ppeals  an  affidavit  to  the  effect  that  he  has  been  duly  admitted 
to  practice,  and  has  taken  the  oath  of  office.®  A  motion  for 
enrollment    nunc    pro    tunc    will    not    be    allowed."^      Though    a 

3  The  Act  of  Congress    of    January  85  Am.  Dec.  62 ;  State  r.  Garesche,  36 

24,  1805,  is  quoted  in  E.\;  p.  Garland,  Mo.    256;    Ex    p.    Hunter,    2    W.    Va. 

4  Wall.  335,  18  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    366;  122;  Ex  p.  Quarrier,  4  W.  Va.  210. 

the  California  Act  of  1863  in  Cohen  r.  5  Ingersoll     v.    Howard.     1     Heisk. 

Wright,  22   Cal.  293,   306;    the  West  (Tenn.)   247. 

Virginia  Act  of  ]863  in  Ex  p.  Faulk-  6  Judiciary   Law.   §   468.     See   also 

ner,  1  W.  Va.  269,  note.  Thompson  r.  Stiles,  44  Misc.  334,  89 

*Cummings    r.    Missouri.    4    Wall.  N.  Y.  S.  876. 

277.  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  356;  Ex  p.  Gar-  7  In  re  Fellowes,  3  111.  369. 

land,  4  Wall.  333,  18  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)  The    Court    of     Appeals     has     no 

366;   Ex  p.  Law,  35  Ga.  285.  15  Fed.  power,  on   original  motion,    to    order 

Cas.  No.  8,126;  Ex  p.  Quarrier.  2  W.  the  filing  nunc    pro    tunc    of    an    at- 

Va.  569.  torney's  oath  for  the  purpose  of  regis- 

For  eases  holding  such  acts  valid  in  tration    under     chapter     165     of     the 

whole  or  in  part  see  Cohen  r.  Wright,  Laws    of     1898.     '"Whether    a    court 

22  Cal.  307;  Ex  p.  Yale,  24  Cal.  241,  of     original      jurisdiction      has      the 


84 


ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE. 


[§  58 


petitioner  passed  the  legal  examination  for  admission  to  the  bar, 
and  was  permitted  to  take  an  attorney's  oath  and  to  sign 
the  roll  of  attorneys,  his  certificate  of  admission  being  withheld 
until  proof  of  his  general  educational  qualifications,  he  was  not 
''admitted,"  and  his  name  is  properly  stricken  from  the  roll  on 
failure  to  make  such  proof.* 

§  58.  Order  Admitting  Applicant — Conclusiveness  There- 
of —  Review.  —  It  has  quite  generally  been  held  that  the  order 
of  admission  may  be  revoked  or  set  aside,  for  good  reason,  by 
the  court  which  made  it.^  But  in  one  state  it  was  held  that 
where  a  license  has  been  granted  to  practice  law,  a  motion  will 
not  lie  at  the  relation  of  any  person  to  vacate  the  order,  on  the 
ground  that  the  granting  of  the  license  had  been  obtained  by  fraud 
and  false  representations ;  because,  after  the  license  was  granted, 
the  proper  remedy  was  by  disbarment  proceedings.^"  It  is  well 
settled   that  the  order  of  admission   is   not  subject  to   collateral 


power,  under  the  statute,  to  relieve 
an  attorney  from  the  consequences  of 
his  negligence  after  he  may  have  he- 
conie  liable  to  criminal  prosecution, 
we  do  not  now  determine."  Matter  of 
Caruthers,  158  N.  Y.  131,  52  N.  E. 
742. 

8  In  re  Alexander,  167  Mich.  495, 
133  X.  \V.  491. 

9Killian  r.  State,  72  Ark.  137,  78 
S.  VV.  766;  People  v.  Betts,  7  Colo. 
453,  4  Pac.  42;  In  re  Burchard,  27 
Hun   (N.Y.)   429. 

Order  Admitting  Attorney  \ot  Con- 
clusive as  to  His  Moral  Character. — 
In  Lowenthal's  Case,  61  Cal.  122,  the 
court  said:  "The  order  of  this  court 
admitting  [an  attorney]  to  practice 
is  in  the  nature  of  a  judgment  that 
he  possessed  the  requisite  qualifica- 
tions when  the  order  was  made  and 
entered.  (Ex  p.  CJarland,  4  Wall,  f  T. 
S.)    333.)      It  follows  that  the  judg- 


ment, while  it  continues  in  force,  is 
an  adjudication  determinative  of  the 
fact  that  the  defendant  was  of  'good 
moral  character'  when  he  was  admit- 
ted by  this  court,  and  an  attack  upon 
his  previous  character  cannot  be  made 
the  basis  of  an  order  for  his  removal. 
Nevertheless,  this  court  will  be  jus- 
tified, of  its  own  motion,  in  setting 
aside  the  order  admitting  the  defend- 
ant to  practice,  sliould  it  appear  that 
the  order  was  obtained  by  means  of 
fraudulent  artifices  or  concealment." 
And  it  seems  that  in  ascertaining 
whether  fraud  has  been  practiced  by 
an  applicant  for  admission,  the  court 
will  hear  evidence  to  show  that  the 
order  of  admission  was  secured  by 
fraudulent  concealment  of  facts  affect- 
ing the  moral  character  of  the  person 
admitted. 

lOXeff  V.  Kohler  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Mo. 
A  pp.  296. 


§    59]  ADMISSION    TO    rUACTICE.  85 

attack."  It  seems  that  no  appeal  lies  from  an  order  admitting 
an  applicant  to  the  bar/^  though  an  appeal  does  lie  from  an  order 
refusing  his  admission.'^^  The  appellate  court,  however,  will  not 
interfere  with  a  proper  exercise  of  the  lower  court's  discretion,^* 

Admission  of  Attorneys  of  Other  Jurisdictions. 

§  59.  Admission    of    Attorneys    from    Other    States.  — 

Residence  within  the  state  as  an  indispensable  requisite  to  ad- 
mission to  general  practice  has  been  discussed  in  another  sec- 
tion.^* The  special  admission  of  attorneys  of  other  jurisdictions 
for  the  purposes  of  a  particular  trial  or  other  matter  of  legal 
business  has  also  been  considered. ^^  The  purpose  of  this  sec- 
tion is  to  consider  the  permanent  admission  to  the  bar  of  one  state 
of  a  duly  licensed  attorney  at  law  of  a  sister  state.  Regulations 
for  such  admission  are  in  force  in  every  jurisdiction,  either  by 
virtue  of  statute  or  rule  of  court.  The  mere  fact  of  being  ad- 
mitted to  the  bar  is  not  sufficient  to  give  one  the  right  to  pursue 
his  calling  in  a  jurisdiction  other  than  that  wherein  he  was  ad- 
mitted.^''^     And  a  fortiori  no  right  results  from  a  license  which 

11  Fish  V.  St.  Louis  County  Print-  mitted,  and  to  admit  accordingly  such 
ing  &  Publishing  Co.,  102  Mo.  App.  as  they  think  qualified.  No  power 
6,  74  S.  W.  641 ;  Parow  v.  Cary,  1  appears  vested  in  the  Superior  Court 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  66;  Holshue  v.  Mor-  to  countervail  such  admission,  because 
(tan,  170  Pa.  St.  217,  32  Atl.  623.  the  remedy  on  the  appeal  is  given  to 
i5ee  also  Crane  v.  Nelson,  37  111.  App.  the  other  side  of  the  question." 

597;   Ex  p.  Trippe,  66  Ind.  531.  13  In  re  Graduates,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (N. 

12  State  v.  Johnston,  2  Har.  &  M.  Y.)  301;  In  re  Cooper,  22  N.  Y.  67, 
(Md.)  164,  wherein  the  court  said:  20  How.  Pr.  1.  See  also  Ex  p.  Beggs, 
"Upon  the  whole,   the  several  courts  67  N.  Y.  120. 

have,  from  great  antiquity,  exercised  i*  Ex  p.  Beggs,  67  N.  Y.  120.     See 
the  power   of  determining  who   were  also  In  re  Splane,  123  Pa.  St.  527,  16 
or  were  not  qualified  to  be  attorneys  Atl.  481,  23  W.  N.  C.  154. 
of  their  respective  courts,  and  admit  15  See  supra,  §  32. 
or  reject  them  accordingly.     The  sev-  16  See  supra,  §  22. 
eral    statutes    and    acts    of    assembly  17  In  re  Rodgers.   194  Pa.  St.  161, 
confirm   this   power,   and   the  Act   of  46  Atl.  668;   In  re  Mosness,  39  Wis. 
1783  gives  them  a  discretionary  power  509,  20  Am.  Eep.  55. 
to  determine  the  knowledge,  abilities,  New  York. — Rule  2(1)   of  the  rules 
and  integrity,  as  well  as  the  political  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  ad- 
principles    of    the    person    to    be    ad-  mission   of  attorneys   and   counselors 


86  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    59 

does  not  admit  tlie  apjjlicaiit  to  practice  in  all  courts  of  his  own 
state. ■'^  A  statute  providing  for  the  admission  of  lawyers  from 
other  states  "means  such  lawyers  as  are  entitled  to  admission 
under  our  law ;"  it  does  not  authorize  the  admission  of  applicants 
merely  because  they  have  practiced  in  other  states,  if  the  same 
persons  would  be  ineligible  to  examination  as  original  and  resi- 
dent applicants. ^^  An  applicant,  under  a  rule  of  court  authoriz- 
ing the  admission  of  attorneys  of  a  stated  ninnber  of  '^years'  stand- 
ing" in  another  state,  must  be  an  attorney  of  the  state  from  which 
he  came  at  the  time  of  his  application,  and  have  been  such  con- 
tinuously for  the  specified  period  immediately  preceding  his 
application.^"  Hence  an  attorney  who  has  been  permanently  dis- 
barred in  another  state  is  not  entitled  to  be  admitted  as  an  attor- 
ney of  "standing"  in  that  state ;  nor  is  he  an  attorney  "of  five 
years'  standing"  therein,  even  though  he  had  practiced  there  for 
five  years  preceding  the  judgment  of  disbarment,  and  has  been 
readmitted  but  without  reversal  or  modification  of  such  judg- 
ment, and  has  not  subsequently  practiced  there  for  five  years. ^ 
Speaking  of  an  Illinois  statute  which  entitled  attorneys  licensed 
in  other  states  to  be  admitted  to  the  bar  in  Illinois  "without  an 
examination,"  the  Supreme  Court  of  that  state  said:  "This  court 
has  refused  to  recognize  that  section  as  valid,  and  has  required 

at  law  provides:  "Any  person  admit-  tice   in    the    Supreme    Court   of    that 

ted  to  practice  and  who  has  practiced  state.     In   re   Backus,   151   App.   Div. 

five  years  as  a  member  of  the  bar  in  813,  3  36  N.  Y.  S.  484. 

the   highest   law   court   in    any   other  Under   the   statute   prescribing  the 

state    or    territory    of    tlie    American  standard    for    admission    to    practice 

Union    or    in    the   District   of   Colum-  law,  the  court  has  no  jurisdiction  to 

bia,"    may,    in    the    discretion    of    the  license  one  on  proof  that  lie  liad  been 

court,  be   admitted   without  cxamina-  admitted    to    the    bar    of    the    circuit 

tioii.  court  of   a   sister   state  and   had   for 

I8iiidcr   rule   2.   Court  of  Appeals  two  years  practiced  law  in  that  state, 

rubs,    ( \.   \.)    AH  X.   ]<].   vii,  relating  Vernon    County    Bar    Assoc.    V.    Mc- 

to   adiiiissioii    of    attorneys,    and    rule  Kibbin,  153  Wis.  350,  141  N.  W.  283. 

1.    general    rules    of    i)riictice    of    Su-  19  In   re   Maddox,  93  Md.   727,  735, 

preme   Court,    the   Ai)].ellate    Division  .'",0   Atl.   487,  55   L.R.A.  2!)8. 

has   no    power    to   admit   without   ex-  20  In  re  Crum,  72  Miiui.  401,  75  N. 

amination  a  person  admitted  to  prac-  W.  385,  79  N.  W.  907. 

tice   in   the   liigliest  court  of  original  1  In  re  Crum,  72  Minn.  401,  75  N. 

juri.sdictioii    in    reiiiisylvania,    whicli  W\  335^  79  N.  VV.  907. 
udmission  diil  not  entith'  him  to  prac- 


§    59]  ADMISSION    TO    PliACTICE.  87 

that  the  course  of  study  in  the  other  state  shall  be  at  least  equal 
to  that  prescribed  by  our  rules,  or  that  the  applicant  should  have 
been  engaged  in  active  practice  under  the  license  for  a  specified 
period."  ^  In  Kentucky  a  nonresident  attorney  in  good  standing 
may  appear  and  practice  "in  a  case  in  which  he  may  be  em- 
ployed." ^  But  he  cannot  be  admitted  to  general  practice,  even 
after  becoming  a  resident  of  the  state,  on  any  other  terms  than 
those  imposed  by  law  on  resident  applicants  who  have  never  prac- 
ticed.* An  Oregon  statute  provided  that  practitioners  in  the 
highest  court  of  another  state  or  country  "may  appear  as  coun- 
sel for  a  party  in  a  particular  action,  suit,  or  before  a  judicial 
officer  of  this  state,  but  not  otherwise."  Under  authority  of  a 
rule  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  courts  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
admitting  those  nonresident  attorneys  on  mere  certificate  of  their 
admission  in  the  foreign  jurisdiction,  and,  in  many  instances, 
without  proof  of  good  moral  character.  The  practice  "has  been 
tolerated  by  an  exuberance  of  liberality  exercised  by  the  bench 
and  bar,"  said  the  Supreme  Court.  "It  is  doubtful,  indeed, 
whether  the  courts  ought  to  exhibit  such  extraordinary  comity, 
and  whether  it  does  not  contravene  the  policy  of  the  state ;  but 
it  is  difficult  for  lawyers  to  be  illiberal  in  such  matters,  and  a 
very  questionable  practice  has  grown  up  in  consequence."  ^  The 
Pennsylvania  Supreme  Court  denied  a  petition  to  be  admitted  to 
the  bar  filed  by  a  resident  who  had  practiced  for  several  years 
in  Illinois,  no  certificate  being  presented  from  a  presiding  judge 
in  the  latter  state  setting  forth  that  the  petitioner  Avas  of  reputable 
professional  standing  as  a  member  of  the  bar  of  his  county.^  An 
applicant  was  admitted  to  the  bar  of  the  Pennsylvania  Supreme 
Court,  at  Pittsburgh,  upon  a  certificate  of  his  admission  to  the 
Court  of  Appeals  of  'New  York,  "which,  under  the  comity  which 
exists  between  the  states,  and  our  rule  of  court,  seemed  to  entitle 
him  to  admission  to  our  court."  Subsequently  an  examination 
of  the  certificate  showed  that  it  was  not  that  of  the   Court  ()f 

2  In  re  Day,   181  111.  73.  92,  54  N.  258,  259.  chap.  100,  §  5.  lias  been  re- 
E.  646,  50  L.R.A.  519.  pealed. 

3  Ky.  Acts  1902,  p.  45,  chap.  16,  §  1.  5  in  re  Leonard,  12  Ore.  93,  6  Pac. 

4  In  re  Creste,  98  S.  W.  282,  hold-  426,  per  cur. 

ing  that  Ky.  Stat.  1903,  §  101,  which  6  in  re  Rodgers,  194  Pa.  St.  161,  46 

was    originally    Acts    1891-1893,    pp.       Atl.  668. 


88  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§60 

Appeals,  but  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Xew  York  certifying  to 
liis  admission  to  the  Court  of  Appeals.  Whereupon  the  court 
said:  ''As  his  admission  to  the  Supreme  Court  there  would  not 
entitle  him  to  admission  here,  and  as  one  court  is  not  permitted 
to  certify  the  records  and  proceedings  of  another  court,  especially 
a  higher  court,  we  regard  our  order  made  at  Pittsburgh  admitting 
the  petitioner  to  practice  in  this  court  as  having  been  improvi- 
dently  made."  "^  By  construction  of  the  South  Dakota  statutes  an 
applicant  who  has  a  certificate  of  admission  to  the  bar  in  an- 
other state,  whether  he  has  also  practiced  there  or  not,  must  satisfy 
the  court  that  he  has  the  general  education  which  the  statute  re- 
quires of  applicants  in  general,  and  that  he  has  pursued  the  study 
of  law  for  three  years.  If  he  is  unable  to  present  the  diploma  or 
certificate  specified  in  the  statute,  as  to  his  educational  qualifi- 
cations, he  must  be  examined  in  the  same  manner  as  an  applicant 
who  has  not  previously  been  admitted  in  any  court. ^  Although 
a  Wisconsin  statute  gave  to  practitioners  in  other  states,  and  re- 
siding in  such  states,  a  right  to  obtain  a  license  in  Wisconsin  and 
thereupon  enjoy  ''all  the  privileges  of  attorneys  at  law  resident 
in  this  state,"  the  court  found  it  "difficult  to  believe"  that  the 
statute  "intended  to  do  more  than  to  authorize  the  appearance  here, 
as  counsel  in  the  trial  and  argimient  of  causes,  of  gentlemen  of 
the  bar  of  other  states."  ^  In  states  where  the  courts  exclude 
women  from  admission  to  the  bar,  a  statute  providing  for  ad- 
mission there  of  members  of  the  bar  from  other  states  will  not  be 
construed  to  authorize  the  admission  of  women  who  have  been 
admitted  to  the  bar  in  these  other  states.^"  Women  are  now  ex- 
cluded from  the  bar  only  in  Arkansas,  Georgia,  and  Virginia.^^ 

§  60.  Attorneys  from  Foreign  Countries.  —  The  statutes 
making  sj)ccial  provision  for  the  admission  of  nonresident  attor- 
neys  do   not  usually  extend,   in  terms,   to   those  who   have   been 

7  .Matter  of  .Splaiie,  12;{  Pa.  St.  r)27,  l"  In  re  Leonard.  12  Ore.  !);;.  (i  Pae. 
538,  ](>  Atl.  481.  42(j.      See   also  In    re    Loekwood,    154 

8  A|)plieation  for  Admission  to  V.  S.  llfi,  14  S.  Ct.  1082,  38  U.  S. 
Practice,  14  S.  D.  420,  85  N.  W.  092.  f  I.,  ed.)    02!) ;    In  re  Maddox,  03  Md. 

8  In   ro  MosncHH,  30   Wis.   500,  511,        727,  735,  50  Atl.  487,  55  L.R.A.  208. 
20  Am.  Hop.  55.  11  See  tiupra,  §  3(i. 


§    00]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  89 

admitted  to  the  bar  in  foreign  countries.  In  California  the  statu- 
tory provisions  include  a  person  qualified  in  respect  of  citizen- 
ship in  tlie  United  States,  or  declaration  of  intention,  who  has 
been  admitted  to  practice  law  in  the  highest  court  of  a  sister  state, 
or  of  a  foreign  country,  where  the  common  law  of  England  con- 
stitutes the  basis  of  jurisprudence.'^^  In  New  York  the  court, 
in  the  exercise  of  an  authorized  discretion,  denied  the  application 
of  a  naturalized  Italian  wdio  had  practiced  law  for  many  years 
at  Palermo.  "When  the  practitioner  comes  from  a  foreign  state 
whose  system  of  law  is  analogous  to  our  own,"  said  the  court, 
"wo  may  fairly  assume  that  after  he  has  resided  here  long  enough 
to  become  eligible  in  other  respects  to  be  admitted  to  our  bar, 
he  has  an  acquaintance  with  our  system  of  jurisprudence  and  our 
laws  that  will  render  him  a  safe  counsel  to  those  clients  who 
apply  to  him.  But,  as  is  well  known,  our  system  differs  greatly 
from  the  law  which  is  administered  in  the  country  whence  this 
applicant  comes.  It  is  quite  true  that  as  to  all  the  rules  of  law 
which  are  based  upon  the  broad  principles  of  natural  right  and 
equity,  there  can  be  no  difference  between  the  laws  of  any  two 
civilized  communities;  but  the  knowledge  that  is  requisite  to  en- 
able one  safely  to  advise  his  client  requires  not  only  a  knowledge 
of  those  broad  principles  of  law  which  are  common  to  all  sys- 
tems, but  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  peculiar  rules  which 
have  grown  out  of  the  customs  of  a  particular  country,  and  which 
have  been  established  by  the  provisions  of  its  statutes.  The  foun- 
dation of  the  law  of  Italy  is  the  Civil  Code  of  the  Roman  empire, 
altered  by  the  customs  and  statutes  of  the  various  states  now  com- 
posing that  kingdom,  and  again  changed  by  the  statutes  of  the 
kingdom  itself  and  by  the  construction  of  its  courts.  The  juris- 
prudence of  this  state,  based  as  it  is  upon  the  constitutions  of 
the  United  States  and  of  this  state,  interpreted  according  to  the 
principles  of  the  common  law,  has  in  all  these  respects  nothing 
common  to  the  law  of  Italy,  and  one  may  be  a  learned  counselor 
in  the  laws  of  that  country,  and  still  by  no  means  be  competent 
to  give  intelligent  advice  to  clients  whose  affairs  are  to  be  con- 
trolled by  the  system  established  in  the  state  of  'New  York.  We 
think,  therefore,  that  it  would  not  be  a  wise  exercise  of  the  dis- 

12  California  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  279. 


90 


ADMISSIOX    TO    PKACTICE. 


[§  01 


cretion  which  the  law  has  vested  in  us  to  assume  that  this  gentle- 
luau,  however  learned  he  may  be  in  the  laws  of  his  own  country, 
is  fitted  to  assume  the  position  of  attorney,  to  give  advice  to 
clients  upon  the  laws  of  this  state."  ^^  Other  sections  have  dealt 
with  the  general  requirements  as  to  citizenship  ^*  and  race.^* 


Objections. 

§  61.  Objections  to  Admission. — All  persons  are  interest- 
ed in  the  rectitude  of  attorneys  and  may  properly  be  permitted  to 
oppose  an  application  for  admission  by  urging  the  moral  dis- 
qualification of  the  applicant. ^^  In  Missouri  the  statute  in  re- 
spect to  licensing  attorneys  requires  that  the  application  for  the 
license  shall  be  tiled  in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  court  to  which 
application  is  made,  at  least  fifteen  days  before  the  first  day  of 
the  term.  The  purpose  of  this  requirement  is  to  give  notice  to 
all  persons  concerned  that  the  application  has  been  made,  and  to 
afford  them  time  and  opportunity  to  appear  with  their  witnesses 
in  opposition  to  the  granting  of  the  license.^''^ 


In  a  West  Virginia 


13  In  re  Maggio,  27  App.  Div.  129, 
51  N.  Y.  S.  1055,  per  cur. 

New  York. — Rule  2(2)  of  the  rules 
of  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  admis- 
sion of  attorneys  and  counselors  at 
law  provides :  "Any  person  admitted 
to  practice  and  who  has  practiced  five 
years  in  another  country  whose  juris- 
prudence is  based  on  the  principles 
of  the  English  common  law,"  may,  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court,  be  admit- 
ted without  examination. 

And  rule  2(3)  of  the  said  rules 
provides:  "Any  American  citizen 
domiciled  in  a  foreign  country  wliose 
jurisprudence  is  based  on  the  princi- 
ples of  th(!  English  common  law,  hold- 
ing a  diploma  or  degree  which  would 
•■ntitle  him  to  practice  law  in  the 
coiirtH  of  Miifh  foreign  country  if  a 
(  iti/cn  tliercof,"  may,  in  the  discre- 
tinii  of  tlic  court,  be  admitted  with- 
out exumiiiation. 


Under  Court  of  Appeals  rule  2, 
providing  for  the  admission  without 
examination  of  attorneys  who  have 
practiced  for  five  years  as  members 
of  the  bar  in  another  country,  to  en- 
title a  person  to  admission,  based  on 
his  being  a  member  of  the  bar  of  Eng- 
land, Ireland,  or  Scotland,  he  must 
have  been  entitled  to  practice  in  the 
highest  court  of  some  part  of  the 
kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ire- 
land. In  re  Wray,  157  App.  Div.  905, 
142  N.  Y.  S.  186. 

H  See  supra,  §  31. 

15  See  supra,   §   33. 

16  Ex  p.  Walls,  73  Ind.  95.  See 
also  In  re  Ilovey,  80  Pac.  234,  1 
Cal.  App.  xviii.,  mem.,  81  Pac.  1019. 

i7Neff  V.  Kohler  Mfg.  Co.,  90  Mo. 
App.  29G. 


§    01]  ADMISSIOiS^    TO    I'KACTICE.  91 

case,  a  bar  association  filed  a  written  protest — which  was  enter- 
tained, although  not  verified — specifying  grounds  of  objection 
against  the  moral  character  of  the  applicant;  the  latter  filed  his 
sworn  answer  to  the  charges  preferred  against  him,  and  evidence 
was  submitted  consisting  of  affidavits  and  a  record  of  evidence  in 
a  chancery  cause  vouched  by  the  protestants  in  support  of  the 
charges.'^'  In  Connecticut  a  rule  of  court  adopted  under  legis- 
lative authority  entrusts  to  the  state  bar  examining  committee, 
composed  of  judges  and  resident  attorneys,  the  decision  of  the 
question  of  an  applicant's  moral  character,  after  report  thereon 
by  a  bar  meeting.  The  superior  court  declined  to  hear  evidence 
in  review  of  an  adverse  report  of  the  examining  committee,  but 
did  inquire  whether  the  approval  of  the  bar  was  withheld  after  a 
fair  investigation  of  the  facts.  In  sustaining  that  action.  Judge 
Baldwin,  speaking  for  the  Supreme  Court  of  Errors,  made  the 
following  observations :  "A  court  is  but  indifferently  adapted  to 
the  task  of  passing  upon  the  qualifications  for  engaging  in  legal 
practice  of  those  who  appear  before  it  as  strangers,  which  are 
personal  to  themselves  and  independent  of  educational  attain- 
ments. These  can  be  easily  determined  by  a  bar,  to  some  at 
least  of  whom  they  will  not  be  strangers.  A  court  could  only 
proceed,  in  such  a  matter,  on  testimony  given  in  public.  The 
bar  can  act  upon  their  own  knowledge,  or  upon  statements  made 
before  them  in  private,  and  without  the  formality  of  an  oath. 
.  .  .  Long  before  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
therefore,  it  was  the  settled  practice  of  the  courts  to  admit  no 
attorneys  except  on  the  recommendation  of  the  county  bar;  and 
of  the  bar  to  recommend  none  of  whose  good  moral  character  they 
were  not  well  satisfied.  Each  candidate  made  prima  facie  proof 
of  possessing  that  character  by  a  certificate  from  his  instructor. 
But  such  hearsay  evidence  could  be  met  by  hearsay  evidence. 
Character,  so  far  as  it  can  be  judged  by  men,  rests  on  opinion." 
And  the  court  found  nothing  in  the  constitution  or  in  the  decla- 
ration of  rights  which  evinced  an  intention  to  abridge  in  any 
respect  the  long-established  powers  of  court  and  bar  in  reference 

18  In  re  Application  for  License  to 
Practice  Law,  67  W.  Va.  213,  67  S. 
E.  597. 


92  ADMISSION    TO    PKACTICE.  [§62 

to  the  admission  of  attorneys.  It  was  further  held  that  the  refer- 
ence by  the  bar  of  the  intended  application  for  examination  to 
their  standing  committee  on  admission  to  the  bar  was  obviously 
proper,  since  "it  called  for  inquiries  of  a  delicate  nature,  and  it 
was  in  the  interest  of  the  public  that  they  should  be  made  in  pri- 
vate and  by  a  small  body  of  men;"  that  the  applicant  was  not 
entitled  to  be  heard  at  the  bar  meeting  on  the  question  of  adopt- 
ing the  report  of  the  committee;  that  the  vote  of  the  bar  against 
approving  the  application  w^as  not  defective  because  no  reasons 
for  their  action  were  stated  in  it  or  otherwise  communicated  to 
the  state  bar  examining  committee;  that  the  committee  of  the  bar 
properly  refused  to  give  the  applicant  the  names  of  those  who 
appeared  before  them ;  and,  lastly,  that  the  evidence  of  the  ap- 
plicant's dishonest  financial  transactions  and  other  reprehensible 
conduct  was  sufficient  to  support  the  action  of  the  bar  in  refusing 
to  rank  him  among  those  whom  they,  acting  under  their  oath  of 
office,  could  recommend  to  the  representatives  of  the  state  as 
"entitled  to  the  confidence  of  the  committee,"  even  if  it  were 
assumed  that  since  the  wrongful  acts  were  done  his  course  of  life 
had  been  altogether  exemplary,  for  "this  could  not  wholly  efface 
the  stain  upon  his  character."  ^^ 

§  62.  Sufficiency  of  Evidence  against  Applicant.  —  The 
power  to  deny  an  application  for  admission  because  the  evidence 
of  good  moral  character  is  unsatisfactory  "is  one  of  great  deli- 
cacy, and  should  be  exercised  with  extreme  caution,  and  with  a 
scrupulous  regard  for  the  character  and  rights  of  the  applicant," 
said  the  New  Jersey  Supreme  Court.  On  the  other  hand,  con- 
is  In  rp  O'Erion,  79  Conn.  40,  (53  ranks  of  tlio  law  is  no  evidence  of  re- 
Atl.  777.  Citing  Fairfield  County  pentance  of  one's  sins.  I  do  not  know 
Jiar  /•.  Taylor,  60  Conn.  1],  22  Atl.  a  more  profitable  field  for  gifted  ras- 
441,  i:{  L.l'.A.  707;  Matter  of  15eggs,  eals  to  exercise  their  talents  in  tliaiv 
ill  X.   V.   120.  in  the  practice  of  it.     This  makes  it 

"I  am  one  of  the  last  men  to  place  all  the  more  important  that  tlie 
an  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  penitent  courts  should  be  vigilant  to  keep  them 
who  has  reformed.  But  I  wish  to  out."  Per  Brown,  J.,  dissenting  in  In 
know  that  he  lias  in  tnitli  reformed,  re  Applicants  for  License,  143  N.  C. 
and,  to  be  sure  ..f  it,  I  chiini  (lie  riglit  I,  27,  10  Ann.  Cas.  187,  55  S.  E.  G35, 
to   Investigate.      A   desire  to  enter  the        10  L.R.A.  (N.S.)    288. 


§    62]  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  93 

tinued  the  court,  "the  standing  of  the  profession  must  not  be 
disregarded,  nor  must  the  court  shrink  from  the  performance  of 
a  clear  duty  however  embarrassing."  ^°  The  words  "good  moral 
character"  in  the  statutes  regulating  admission  to  the  bar  in- 
clude, of  course,  all  the  elements  essential  to  make  up  such  a 
character ;  "among  these  are  common  honesty  and  veracity."  ^ 
The  attribute  of  common  honesty  could  not  be  imputed  to  one 
who  was  a  party  to  a  fraudulent  conspiracy  to  extort  money,  even 
though  it  should  happen  not  to  be  punishable  as  a  criminal  of- 
fense.^ A  person  recently  convicted  of  larceny  does  not  possess 
a  "good  moral  character"  notwithstanding  a  full  and  uncondi- 
tional pardon.^  Where  an  act  charged  against  an  applicant  is 
of  such  a  nature  and  rests  upon  such  evidence  as  would,  if  the 
act  were  committed  in  the  course  of  practice,  warrant  the  court 
in  calling  upon  an  attorney  at  law  to  show  cause  why  his  name 
should  not  be  stricken  from  the  roll,*  his  application  should  be 
denied,  unless  upon  oath  he  purges  himself  of  the  imputed  delin- 
quency, or  by  satisfactory  proof  relieves  himself  from  the  charge.^ 
This  was  the  course  taken  where  an  indictment  against  the 
applicant  in  the  same  court  had  not  been  traversed,  but  was 
quashed  upon  the  ground  that  the  matter  charged  did  not  con- 
stitute an  indictable  offense,  and  the  groundwork  of  the  indict- 
ment consisted  of  alleged  acts  involving  fraud  and  moral  turpi- 
tude.® There  are  many  vices  that  render  a  person's  character  more 
or  less  bad  that  have  no  tendency  to  show  that  he  is  unsafe  and 
unfit  to  be  intrusted  with  the  powers  of  the  profession,  but  a 
want  of  credibility  upon  oath  does  not  come  within  this  class.''' 
If  an  applicant's  reputation  for  truth  and  veracity  is  proved  to 
be  so  notoriously  bad  that  he  could  not  be  believed  under  oath,  it 
is    unquestionable,    said    the    Michigan    Supreme    Court,    that    a 

20  In  re  Attorney's  License,  21  N.  J.  3  People  v.  George,  186  111.  122,  133, 

L.  345.  57  N.  E.  804. 

1  In  re  0 ,  73  Wis.  602,  618,  *  See  infra,  §  773  et  seq. 

42  N.  W.  221,  a  proceeding  for  disbar-  5  In  re  Attorney's  License,  21  N.  J. 

ment.  L.  345. 

2  People  r.  Macauley,  230  111.  208,  6  In  re  Attorney's  License,  21  N.  J. 
213,  82  X.  E.  612,  120  Am.  St.  Rep.  L.  345. 

287.  '^  Per  Grover,  J.,  in  In  re  Percy,  36 

N.  Y.  651,  654. 


9-i  •  ADMISSION    TO    PRACTICE.  [§    62 

license  to  practice  law  would  be  denied  him.'  An  applicant's 
moral  character  is  not  necessarily  impaired  by  his  failure  to  dis- 
close the  fact  that  disbarment  proceedings  are  pending  against 
him  in  another  state,  or  that  the  order  admitting  him  to  the  bar 
in  that  state  had  been  revoked  on  grounds  not  affecting  his  char- 
acter; for  example,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  an  alien,  he  having 
supposed,  however,  and  for  good  reasons,  that  he  was  a  citizen.' 
Xor  would  a  lack  of  frankness  and  candor  in  relation  to  such  a 
matter,  in  his  answers  to  questions  put  to  him  by  a  grievance  com- 
mittee opposing  his  application,  necessarily  reflect  upon  his  moral 
character.^"  But  if  the  matter  suppressed  had  been  a  conviction 
of  gross  misconduct  or  an  actual  disbarment  the  case  would  be 
otherwise.^^  In  a  case  where  an  attorney  was  disbarred  because 
in  applying  for  a  license  he  had  presented  a  letter  of  recommen- 
dation to  which  he  had  forged  the  name  of  a  firm  of  attorneys, 
it  was  said  that  "had  the  matter  been  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  court  at  the  time  the  application  was  made,  the  license  would 
have  been  denied  upon  the  ground  of  total  unfitness  of  the  appli- 
cant." ^^  A  license  was  refused  where  the  court  was  convinced 
beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  applicant  had  committed  per- 
jury as  a  witness  in  another  court,  and  that,  being  a  member  of 
a  city  council,  he  was  induced,  for  a  pecuniary  consideration,  to 
go  away  and  desert  his  office  so  that  his  seat  could  be  declared 
vacant  and  another  person  installed  in  his  place.  But  in  con- 
chision  the  court  said:  "Justice,  however,  may  always  be  tem- 
pered with  mercy ;  and  after  a  reasonable  lapse  of  time,  and  a 
satisfactory  showing  that  the  applicant  has  repented  of  his  wrong, 
and  is  living  the  exemplary  life  and  maintaining  the  good  cliar- 

8  Matter  of  Mills,  1  Midi.  392.  ;5i)S.  10  In  re  Ilovey.  1  Cal.  App.  wiii 
where  Wliipple,  C.  J.  said:  "He  would  mem.,  81  Pac.  1019,  where  the  court 
I  be]  told  that  a  person  whose  reputa-  said:  "In  view  of  the  adverse  rela- 
tion for  truth  and  veracity  was  so  tions  of  the  parties,  we  do  not  deem  it 
had     .     .     .     was    an    unsafe    deposi-  material." 

tory  of  a  power  to  act  as  a  public  at-  H  Per  Smith,  J.  in  In   re   Hovey.  1 

torney;  that  such  a  power  could  only  Cal.  App.  xviii  mem.,  81    Pac.   101!); 

lie  entrusted  by  courts  to  those  who  Lowenthal's  Case,  61  Cal.  122. 

sustained  'a  good  moral  character.""'  12  In   re  Woodward,  27   Mont,  o'l-), 

9  in    re    ilovey,     1     Cal.    Ajip.    wiii  71   I'ac.  161. 

MKIII.,    HI      I'ilc.     lOlfl. 


§     G2]  ADMISSION     TO    rilACTlCE.  95 

acter  which  numerous  affidavits  filed  show  he  bore  prior  to  the 
ofi^enses  charged  against  him,  he  will  be  entitled  to  the  favorable 
consideration  of  this  court,  and  this  decision  shall  in  no  way 
conclude  us  upon  a  subsequent  application."  ^* 

13  In  re  Application  for  License  to 
Practice  Law,  67  W.  Va.  213,  67  S.  E. 
597. 


CHAPTER    IIL 

TAXATION  OF  ATTORNEYS— UNAUTHORIZED  PRACTICE. 

Taxation  of  Attorneys. 

§  63.  Power  to  Impose  Tax. 

64.  Validity  of  Statutes  Imposing  Tax. 

65.  Municipal  Taxation. 

66.  Taxation  of  Nonresidents. 

67.  Collection  of  Taxes. 

68.  Failure  to  Pay  Tax  as  Affecting  Compensation. 

Unauthorized  Practice. 

69.  Practicing  Without  License. 

70.  Status  of  Proceedings  by  Unlicensed  Person. 

71.  Certain  Officers  Prohibited  from  Practicing  as  Attorney's  at  Law. 

Taxation  of  Attorneys. 

§  63.  Power  to  Impose  Tax.  —  In  the  absence  of  any  con- 
stitutional inhibition,  it  is  well  settled  that  the  imposition  of  an 
occupation  tax  or  license  fee  upon  attorneys  at  law  is  entirely 
within  the  power  of  the  legislature,  and  statutes  providing  for 
such  taxation  are  in  effect  in  several  states.^     There  is  nothing 


^  Alahatiia. — In  re  Dorsey,  7  Port. 
293;  Jones  V.  Page,  44  Ala.  657; 
Cousins  V.  State,  50  Ala.  113.  20  Am. 
Rep.  290;  Goldthwaite  r.  Montgom- 
ery. 50  Ala.  480. 

Florida. — Young  v.  Thomas,  17  Fla. 
]69,  35  Am.  Rep.  93.  See  also  Blanch- 
ard  r.  State,  .30  Fla.  223.  11  So.  785, 
18  L.R.A.  409. 

Georgia. — See  \^■hit(■  r.  llixon.  132 
Ga.  567,  64  S.  E.  648. 

Louisiana. — State  v.  Waples,  12  La. 
Ann.  343;  State  v.  Feliowes.  12  La. 
Ann.  344;  State  V.  King,  21  l>u.  Aim. 
201. 


Maryland. — Egan  r.  Ciiarles  Coun- 
ty Ct.  3  Har.  &  M.  169. 

Mississippi. — Stewart  r.  Potts,  49 
Miss.  749. 

Missouri. — Simmons  r.  State,  12 
Mo.  268.  49  Am.  Dec.  131;  St.  Louis 
r.  Laughlin,  49  Mo.  559;  St.  Louis 
r.  Sternberg,  69  Mo.  289,  reversing  4 
Mo.  App.  453. 

0/!io.— State  V.  Gazlay,  5  Ohio  22. 

Oregon. — Lent  v.  Portland,  42  Ore. 
488,  71  Pac.  645. 

South  Carolina. — State  v.  TTayne, 
4  S.  C.  403. 

Texas. — Languille  v.  State,  4  Tex. 


96 


§  64] 


TAXATION    OF    ATTORNEYS. 


97 


particularly  sacred  in  the  profession  of  a  lawyer,  Avliich  puts  him 
above  the  legislative  power  to  place  on  his  shoulders  his  just 
share  of  the  necessary  burdens  of  the  state.''  The  levy  of 
such  an  occupation  tax  is  wholly  a  domestic  affair,  governed 
by  the  state  constitution  and  state  laws ;  ^  it  cannot  be  sus- 
tained as  a  police  regulation.*  It  has  been  held,  under  a  statute 
which  provides  that  all  lawyers  practicing  their  profession  must 
pay  a  license  tax,  that  each  member  of  a  firm  of  practicing  law- 
yers must  pay  the  tax.^  A  retired  lawyer  who  tries  a  single  case 
for  a  neighbor  gratuitously  is  not  a  practicing  lawyer,  so  as  to 
be  liable  to  a  statutory  penalty  for  practicing  without  having  paid 
the  privilege  license  tax.^ 

§  64.  Validity  of  Statutes  Imposing  Tax.  —  It  has  been 
held  that  statutes  imposing  a  license  fee  or  tax  on  members  of  the 
legal  profession  are  not  obnoxious  to  the  constitutional  require- 
ment that  taxes  shall  be  uniform,  because  it  demands  of  every 
lawyer  the  same  amount  of  tax  without  reference  to  the  income, 
emoluments,  or  profits  of  his  practice ;  '  the  rule  in  this  respect 


App.  312;  Ex.  p.  Williams,  31  Tex. 
Crim.  262,  20  S.  W.  580,  21  L.R.A. 
783,  foUoued  in  Trezvant  v.  State,  20 
S.  W.  582. 

Virginia. — Ould  v.  Richmond,  23 
Gratt.  4G4,  14  Am.  Rep.  139. 

2  Cousins  V.  State,  50  Ala.  113,  20 
Am.  Rep.  290;  McCaskell  c.  State,  53 
Ala.  510;  State  r.  King,  21  La.  Ann. 
201  ;  State  v.  Fernandez,  49  La.  Ann. 
764,  21  So.  591. 

An  exemption  of  attorneys  from 
such  a  tax  must  clearly  appear.  Mere 
implication  is  insufficient  to  estab- 
lish the  relinquishment  by  the  state 
of  the  power  to  tax  and  regulate  the 
occupations  of  its  citizens.  Gold- 
thwaite   v.  Montgomery,  50  Ala.  486. 

3  Goldthvvaite  v.  Montgomery,  50 
Ala.  486. 

4Sonora  v.  Curtin,  137  Cal.  583,  70 
Pac.  674. 

Attys.  at  L.  \^ol.  I. — 7. 


5  Jones  V.  Page,  44  Ala.  657 ; 
P.Ianchard  r.  State,  30  Fla.  223,  11 
So.  785,  18  L.R.A.  409. 

6McCargo  c.  State,  (Miss.)  1  So. 
161. 

7  St.  Louis  r.  Sternberg,  69  Mo.  289, 
reversing  4  Mo.  App.  453. 

A  statute  imposing  a  tax  upon  at- 
torneys does  not  conflict  with  the  con- 
stitutional provision  that  "all  prop- 
erty subject  to  taxation"  in  the  state 
"shall  be  taxed  in  proportion  to  its 
value."  Simmons  r.  State,  12  ^lo. 
268,  49  Am.  Dec.  131.  See  also  State 
r.  Hayne,  4  S.  C.  403. 

The  argument  was  advanced  in  Mc- 
Caskell r.  State,  53  Ala.  510,  that  the 
right  secured  to  a  lawyer  by  his  pro- 
fessional license  was  a  franchise,  that 
a  franchise  was  property,  and  that 
the  taxation  of  it  as  property  must 
be  according  to  the  value,  which  was 


98 


TAXATIO^'    OF   ATTOKNEYS. 


li  G4 


being  that  taxation  will  be  equal  and  nniforni  if  all  persons  in 
the  same  calling,  trade,  or  profession  are  taxed  alike.*  Xor  is  such 
a  statute  open  to  the  objection  that  it  is  a  poll  or  capitation  tax 
which  cannot  be  levied  under  the  constitution.  "The  tax  is  not 
levied  upon  the  person  without  relation  to  his  abilities  to  pay,  but 
it  is  designed  to  operate  upon  the  profits  of  lucrative  profes- 
sions." ^  ^or  does  a  license  tax  deprive  an  attorney  of  any  vested 
right. ^°  The  professional  license  of  an  attorney  confers  no  ex- 
emption from  an  occupation  tax.^^     A  clear  distinction  exists  be- 


to  be  determined  by  the  income  de- 
rived from  it:  and.  accordingly,  that 
the  occupation  tax  was  illegal.  The 
court  said:  "It  would  be  difficult  to 
assess  a  value  upon  it  as  property. 
And  to  tax  each  owner  of  a  franchise 
which  is  exactly  the  same  in  quality 
and  extent  to  each,  according  to  the 
profit  they  respectively  realize  there- 
from, is  to  tax,  not  the  so-called  prop- 
erty according  to  its  value,  but  the 
studious  labor,  industry,  and  talent 
by  which  one  person  makes  it  more 
productive  than  another." 

8  Ex.  p.  Williams,  31  Tex.  Crim. 
262,  20  S.  W.  580,  21  L.R.A.  783. 

9  State  r.  Gazlay,  5  Ohio  22. 

10  Elliott  V.  Louisville,  101  Ky.  2G2, 
40  S.  W.  (590;  State  v.  King.  21  La. 
Ann.  201;  Ould  v.  Richmond,  23 
Gratt.  (Va.)  4G4,  14  Am.  Rep.  139. 

A  lawyer's  license,  said  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  Virginia,  "is  a  vested 
civil  right;  yet  it  is  as  properly  a 
legitimate  subject  of  taxation  as  prop- 
erty to  which  a  man  has  a  vested 
right.  I  cannot  perceive  that  there 
would  not  be  as  much  reason  for 
saying  that  a  man's  property  is  not 
taxable  because  he  has  a  vested  right 
to  it,  as  for  saying  that  a  lawyer's 
license  is  not  taxable  because  he  lias 
a  vested  right  to  it."  Ould  /■.  Ivi<-li- 
niond,    HUi)ra,   approrcd   in    ^'()llIlg    v. 


Thomas,  17  Fla.  169,  35  Am.  Rep. 
93. 

11  Cousins  V.  State.  50  Ala.  113.  20 
Am.  Rep.  290;  Goldthwaite  v.  :\Iont- 
gomery,  50  Ala.  486:  McCaskell  /'. 
State,  53  Ala.  510;  Young  r.  1  liomas. 
17  Fla.  169,  35  Am.  Rep.  93;  State  /". 
King,  21  La.  Ann.  201 ;  State  v.  Fer- 
nandez, 49  La.  Ann.  764,  21  So.  591  : 
Lent  V.  Portland,  42  Ore.  488,  71  Pac. 
645;  Languille  v.  State,  4  Tex.  App. 
312;  Petersburg  V.  Cocke,  94  Va.  247, 
26  S.  E.  576,  36  L.R.A.  432. 

"Lawyers  have  no  more  privileges 
tlian  other  citizens  in  tlie  pursuit  of 
their  profession,"  said  the  court  in 
State  (".  Fernandez,  49  La.  Ann.  764, 
21  So.  591.  "The  license  to  practice, 
granted  to  them  under  the  law  to  pur- 
sue the  profession  of  attornej',  is  only 
an  evidence  of  character,  fitness  and 
ability.  The  privilege  of  pursuing  the 
profession  carries  with  it  no  exemp- 
tion from  the  duties  of  citizenship, 
the  sharing  with  others  the  expense 
of  government,  both  state  and  nuinici- 
pal.  If  there  is  one  thing  more  than 
any  other  which  sliould  impress  itself 
upon  the  profession,  it  is  tiie  duty  to 
aid  and  assist  in  the  execution  of  the 
Inws.  and  to  bear  tlie  just  proportion 
(if  expenses  to  make  the  government  a 
vigorous  and  healthy  instrumental- 
ity in  the  preservation  of  society  and 


§     0-iJ  TAXATION    OF    ATTOIIXEYS.  99 

tween  the  license  by  which  a  person  is  imthorized  to  practice  law 
as  an  attorney  and  the  license  under  a  revenue  law  by  which  a 
person  is  required  to  contribute  a  certain  sum  of  money  to  the 
public  treasur}^  In  the  former  case  the  license  is  a  certificate 
that  the  person  to  whom  it  is  given,  having  been  examined  in 
respect  to  his  qualifications,  is  found  worthy,  and  therefore  is 
authorized  to  practice  his  profession.  The  license  tax  on  the  other 
hand  is  a  measure  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  producing  revenue 
for  public  use.  The  professional  license,  then,  is  not  an  exemp- 
tion from  the  burdens  of  taxation.  It  merely  permits  the  holder 
of  it  to  pursue  the  business  and  occupation  of  an  attorney  at  law, 
and  leaves  the  occupation  itself  free  to  be  taxed,  to  the  same  extent 
that  other  occupations  may  be  taxed,  and  for  like  pnrposes.^^  It 
has  been  contended  that  when  a  lawyer  receives  his  professional 
license  authorizing  him  to  practice  in  the  courts,  a  contract  is 
created  between  him  and  the  state,  which  is  impaired  by  imposing 
a  license  tax.  It  is  well  settled,  however,  that  a  license  to  practici> 
law  is  not  a  contract  investing  the  person  to  whom  it  is  granted 
with  rights  which  cannot  be  interfered  with  by  the  state.  It  is 
the  naked  grant  of  a  privilege,  which  may  be  revoked,  or  made 
subject  to  such  conditions  as  may  be  demanded  by  the  public  in- 
terest.^^  In  Tennessee,  however,  a  statute  requiring  attorneys  to 
pay  a  license  tax  has  been  condemned  by  the  court  upon  the  ground 

til  •     protection     of     all     citizens     in  are  to   be   found   in   the   grant   of   li- 

all  tlieir  rights  and  in  the  pursuit  of  cense  to  practice  law;  there  is  no  en- 

their    occupations."  gagemcnt   between   the   state   and   the 

iSMcCaskell  r.  State,  53  Ala.  510;  applicant  for  license  that  he  will  fol- 

Lent  r.  Portland,  42  Ore.  488,  71  Pac.  low  the  practice  of  the  law  for  a  live- 

645.  lihood;   no  legal  consideration  is  paid 

13  Baker  v.  Lexington,  53  S.  W.  10,  the  state  for  the  license.     The  grant 

21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  809;  State  v.  Waples,  of  the  license  is  a  mere  naked  grant 

12  La.  Ann.  343;   Simmons  r.  State,  of  a  privilege  without  consideration, 

12  Mo.  268,  49  Am.  Dec.  131;   State  and  which  the  applicant  may  or  may 

V.    Gazlay,    5    Ohio    22;    Languille    r.  not,   at   his   option,   avail   himself   of. 

State,   4  Tex.   App.   312:    Ex   p.   Wil-  Therefore   the   state   may    revoke   the 

liams,   31    Tex.    Crim.   202,   20   S.   W.  privilege  granted,  or  may  impose  such 

580,  21  L.R.A.  783.  conditions    upon    its    exercise    as    are 

In   Simmons    r.   State.    12  Mo.   271,  deemed    ))roper    or    demanded    by   the 

49  Am.  Dec.  131.   it  was  said:   "None  public  interest." 
of  tlie  essential  elements  of  a  contract  "Altliouirh  the  efl'ect  of  tlie  license 


lUO 


TAXATION    OF    ATTOUNKYS, 


[§   04 


that  it  constitutes  an  invasion  of  the  ju<licial  department  of  the 


liovernnient. 


irives  to  the  members  of  these  profes- 
sions something  of  an  exclusive  char- 
acter, and  incidentally  confers  valu- 
able privileges,  yet  the  design  of  the 
license  is  to  protect  tlie  community 
from  the  consequences  of  a  want  of 
professional  qualifications,  and  to 
I)cnelit  the  public  by  enabling  the  pro- 
fession to  acquire  professional  merits; 
consequently  the  license  cannot  be 
liolden  to  confer  any  vested  privileges, 
but  is  liable  to  be  modified  in  any 
manner  which  the  public  welfaie  may 
deniand."  State  r.  Gazlay,  5  Ohio  15. 
14  111  re  Lawyers'  Tax  Cases,  8 
ilcisk.  (Tenn.)  56.3,  wherein  it  was 
liold  tluit  an  attorney  who  had  been 
admitted  and  licensed  to  practice  law 
was  invested  with  a  right  which  could 
not  lie  made  conditional  upon  liis  pro- 
curing a  license  and  paying  a  tax. 
The  court  cited  Ex  p.  Garland,  4  Wall. 
:578.  ]8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  370,  as  estab- 
lishing the  proposition  that  lawyers 
admitted  to  practice  in  tlie  courts  by 
tlie  orders  of  the  judge  become  tliere- 
liy  odicers  of  the  courts,  and  neces- 
sary constituent  parts  thereof;  and 
that  the  right  thus  ac(|uiic(l  cannot  be 
levoked  at  the  mere  pleasure  of  the 
court,  or  at  the  command  of  the  legis- 
lature. This  being  tlie  legal  status 
of  attorneys,  tlie  court  cDnciuded  that 
an  invasion  of  tiic  iinlicial  de])art- 
iiiciit  of  tlic  ;;oV(  riiin<-iit  would  result 
from  the  iriip(isitii)M  of  tlie  tax,  say- 
iiiL-:  ""If  the  lc;^islatnre  lias  tlie  power 
ti'  cDiivcrl  the  oMice  of  an  attorney 
into  a  taxai)le  privilege,  by  prohiiiit- 
ing  its  j'xercise  without  taking  out  an 

;ii :il    license,   why   may   tlicy   imt    liy 

the    same    |)l<>ces>    luincrt     the    (itliccs 


of  the  clerks,  sheriffs,  and  marshals, 
and.  in  fact,  of  the  judges  themselves, 
into  taxable  privileges,  and  require 
them  all  to  pay  taxes  on  their  oflicea, 
or  cease  to  hold  and  exercise  their 
functions?  In  principle  no  distinc- 
tion can  be  drawn.  .  .  .  The 
three  departments  of  the  state  govern- 
ment being  distinct  and  independent 
in  their  respective  spheres,  the  con- 
stitution forbids  the  invasion  of  the 
province  of  one  by  the  exercise  of 
their  respective  powers  in  violation 
of  the  powers  of  the  others.  Such  we 
hold  to  be  the  character  of  the  act  of 
the  legislature,  which  undertakes  to 
impose  taxes  on  the  privileges  or 
rights  of  lawyers,  who  are  officers  of 
the  courts,  and  therefore  we  declare 
the  act  unconstitutional  and  void." 

Compare  Ex  p.  Williams,  31  Tex. 
Trim.  262.  20  S.  W.  580,  21  L.R.A. 
783,  wherein  it  was  claimed  that  then- 
was  an  implied  exemption  from  the 
tax,  arising  from  the  fact  that,  as 
ofTicers  of  the  court,  attorneys  were  a 
part  of  the  judicial  system  of  the 
state,  and.  if  the  right  to  tax  be  con- 
ceded, the  legislature  could  tax  them 
out  of  existence.  The  court  said: 
"The  contention  that  the  legislature 
may  cripple  or  destroy  the  judicial  de- 
partment is  more  plausible  than 
soiiinl.  WC  certainly  are  not  to  pre- 
sume that  a  co-ordinate  department 
of  the  government  would  aiiuse  its 
power  by  imposing  a  prohibitory  tax 
(111  the  practice  of  law.  The  objec- 
tidii  goes  to  the  existence  of  the 
power,  ratiier  than  to  any  probability 
of  its  exercise.  It  is.  indeeil.  an  ob- 
jection   that    could    be    urged    against 


§  <;.:>] 


TAXATION    OF   ATTOIJXEYS. 


101 


§  65.  Municipal  Taxation.  —  Tn  the  absence  of  eonstitntional 
restraint  or  limitation,  the  legishitnre  may  delegate  to  municipal 
corporations  the  power  to  license  or  tax  occupations,  trades,  em- 
ployments, and  professions,  including  the  legal  pi-ofession.'^^  Thus 
it  has  been  held  that  power  to  impose  a  license  tax  (jn  lawyers  is 
derived  from  a  delegation  of  authority  "to  license,  tax,  and  reg- 
idate  for  the  purpose  of  city  revenue  all  such  business,  callings, 
trades,  and  emplo^'ment  as  the  common  council  may  rcMpiirc  to  be 
licensed  and  as  are  not  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  the  state.''  ^® 
The  imiDosition  of  an  occupation  tax  by  the  state  does  not  pre- 
clude a  municipality  within  its  borders  from  levying  another  such 
tax.^'''     Xor  does  the  omission  of  the  state  to  tax  lawvers  affect  the 


any  exercise  of  the  taxing  power. 
Tluis.  the  legislature  ought  not  to 
have  the  power  to  tax  land,  for  fear 
it  might  confiscate;  nor  personal 
property,  because  the  tax  imposed 
might  exceed  its  value:  nor  any  occu- 
pation, business,  or  pursuit,  because 
they  could  be  taxed  out  of  existence, 
and  the  livelihood  of  many  be  de- 
stroyed. The  answer  to  all  such  ob- 
jections is  to  be  found  in  'the  law 
and  order  instincts'  of  the  people,  and 
their  capacity  for  'self-government.' 
Ir  tlie  language  of  Chief  Justice  ]\Iar- 
sliall :  'The  only  security  against 
abuse  lies  in  the  structure  of  our  gov- 
ernment, and  the  influence  of  the  con- 
stituency over  the  representatives.' 
He  says  the  people  of  a  state  give 
their  government  a  right  to  tax  tliem- 
selves  and  their  property,  and  pre- 
scribe no  limit,  as  the  exigencies  of 
the  government  cannot  be  measured 
or  limited,  resting  confidently  on  the 
interest  of  the  legislator,  and  on  the 
influence  of  the  constituency  over  the 
representative.  M'Culloch  r.  Mary- 
land, 4  Wheat.  428,  4  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
579." 


^^  Alabama. — Ex  p.  Moiitgonierv. 
04  Ala.  4(53. 

Ca/f'/ornm.— Sonora  r.  Curtiii,  ^'M 
Cal.  r)83.  70  Pac.  074. 

Georgia. — See  Savannah  r.  Hines, 
53  Ga,  010. 

Kansas. — Garden  City  v.  Abbott.  34 
Kan.  283.  8  Tac.  473. 

Kentuckjj. — Baker  r.  Lexington.  .■)3 
S.  \V.  to.  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  809:  Yantis 
r.  Lexington.  94  S.  W.  0.53.  29  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  (189. 

Louisiana. — State  c.  Fernandez.  49 
La.  Ann.  704,  21  So.  591. 

Missouri. — St.  Louis  v.  Laughlin, 
49  Mo.  559;  St.  Louis  V.  Sternberg, 
09  Mo.  289,  rerersing  4  Mo.  App.  453. 

\orth  Carolina. — Holland  r.  Tsler, 
77  X.  C.  1 ;  \Yilmington  r.  Macks.  80 
N.  C.  88,  41   Am.  Rep.  443. 

Oregon. — Lent  (".  Portland.  42  Ore. 
488,  71  Pac.  045;  Abraliam  v.  Rose- 
burg,  55  Ore.  350,  Ann.  Cas.  1912A 
597.  105  Pac.  401. 

Virginia. — Ould  I'.  Riclunond,  23 
Graft.  404,  14  Am.  Rep.  139;  Blanch- 
ard  r.  Bristol.  100  Va.409.  41  S.  E.  948. 

16  Lent  V.  Portland,  42  Ore.  488,  71 
Pac.  045. 

17  .Savannah  V.  Hines,  53  Ga.  010. 


102 


TAXATION    OF   ATTORNEYS. 


[§   GO 


power  of  a  municipality  to  impose  such  a  tax."  The  uiiniicipal 
power  of  taxation  does  not,  of  course,  exist  unless  it  has  been  con- 
ferred upon  the  municipality  by  the  state,^^  and  such  a  delega- 
tion of  authority  must  be  without  ambiguity,^"  Thus  a  grant  of 
authority  to  tax  persons  engaged  in  enumerated  trades  and  occu- 
pations and  "all  other  business,  trades,  avocations  or  professions 
whatever,"  has  been  held  not  to  empower  a  municipality  to  tax 
lawyers.^ 

§  66.  Taxation  of  Nonresidents.  —  Where  the  laws  of  a 
state  permit  attorneys  at  law  to  practice  their  profession  therein, 
alth(.)Ugh  they  reside  in  another  state,  as,  for  instance,  in  Xew 
York,^  it  would  seem  that  lawvers  so  situated  would  be  obliged  to 
pay  a  tax  imposed  on  the  members  of  their  profession  by  the  state 
in  which  they  practice;  and,  possibly,  by  the  state  of  their  resi- 
dence, if  thev  were  also  members  of  its  bar,  and  a  tiix  was  also 


18  Ex  p.  Montgomery,  64  Ala.  463 : 
St.  Louis  r.  Sternberg.  69  ilo.  289, 
reversing  4  Mo.  App.  453. 

19  Sonora  v.  Curtin,  137  Cal.  583, 
TO  Pac.  674;  St.  Louis  r.  Laughlin,  49 
Mo.  559.  See  also  Ogden  City  v.  Bore- 
man,  20  Utah   98,  57   Pac.   843. 

20  St.  Louis  r.  Laughlin.  49  Mo. 
559;  American  Union  Exp.  Co.  r.  St. 
Joseph,  66  Mo.  675,  27  Am.  Rep.  382. 

1  St.  Louis  V.  Laughlin,  49  Mo.  559, 
wherein  Mr.  Justice  Wagner  said: 
"In  the  present  ease  the  charter  spe- 
cifically enumerates  tiie  classes  of  per- 
sons intended  to  be  taxed,  and  the 
sweeping  words  'all  other  business. 
trades,  avocations  or  professions,'  we 
do  not  think  can  be  made  to  include 
persons  not  of  the  same  generic  cliar- 
acter  or  class.  Tn  specifying  and 
enumerating  the  trades  and  profes- 
sions to  be  taxed,  it  was  intended  to 
limit  tlie  taxation  to  them  or  to  pi-r- 
.sons  engaged  in  aimilar  trades  or  oc- 


cupations. If  it  had  been  designed 
to  tax  lawyers,  which,  as  the  agreed 
case  finds,  number  over  three  hundred 
in  this  city,  it  is  unaccountable  that 
they  should  have  been  omitted  in  the 
enumeration,  whilst  other  professions 
comprehending  but  a  few  persons  are 
expressly  referred  to  and  selected. 
To  give  the  words  'all  other  business, 
trades,  avocations  or  professions'  tlie 
meaning  contended  for  would  give  the 
city  the  power  of  taxation  by  license 
over  nearly  every  laborer.  I  am  of 
the  opinion  that  the  legislature  had 
no  sucli  intention  in  view." 

2  "'A  person  regularly  admitted  to 
practice  as  an  attorney  and  counsel- 
or in  tlie  courts  of  record  of  the 
state,  whose  oflice  for  the  transaction 
of  hnv  business  is  witliiii  the  state, 
may  practice  as  such  attorney  or 
counselor  although  he  resides  in  ai! 
adjoining  state."  Sec.  470,  N.  \'. 
Judiciary  J^vv. 


§  <37J 


TAXATION    OF   ATTOU^'KVS. 


lo;; 


imposed  therein.^  So  an  attorney  having  his  office  and  place  of 
business  in  a  city,  and  practicing  his  profession  therein,  although 
he  nuiy  reside  outside  of  the  city's  limits,  is  as  much  liable  to  a 
tax  imposed  by  the  city  upon  attorneys  at  law,  as  an  attorney 
residing  within  the  city.*  But  under  a  grant  of  authority  to  a 
municipality  to  levy  and  collect  license  taxes  on  attorneys  at  law 
''residing  in  such  city,"  the  city  has  no  power  to  require  a  license 
tax  from  an  attorney  residing  outside  the  city,  although  he  may 
maintain  his  otHce  in  the  city  and  transact  his  business  therein.^ 
It  is  doubtful  if  mere  incidental  practice  would  subject  a  non- 
resident to  taxation.  It  has  been  held  that  a  municipal  ordinance 
is  not  invalid  because  of  a  proviso  that  no  license  shall  be  required 
of  such  persons  as  are  temporarily  in  the  city  on  specific  pro- 
fessional business.^ 


§  67.  Collection  of  Taxes.  —  The  power  to  tax  occupations 
includes  the  power  to  license  them,  and  to  compel  the  payn)ent  of 
the  tax  as  a  condition  precedent  to  entering  upon  such  occupation, 
or  exercising  such  privilege.'''  So  the  power  to  impose  fine  and 
imj^risonment  for  a  failure  to  pay  the  license  tax  is  an  incident 
to  the  power  to  levy  the  tax.^     And  where  authorized  by  statute. 


3  Tims  a  lawyer,  a  citizen  of  Ten- 
nessee dining  the  year  1906,  and  who 
about  six  months  of  the  year  prac- 
ticed law  in  that  state  and  during 
the  remainder  of  the  year  maintained 
a  law  office  in  Georgia,  was  held  to 
be  liable  in  Georgia  for  a  tax  imposed 
for  the  year  1900  on  every  practi- 
tioner in  that  state.  White  f.  Hixon, 
332  Ga.  .107.   t;4   S.   E.  648. 

4  Petersburg  r.  Cocke.  94  Va.  244. 
26  S.  E.  .576.  .36  L.R.A.  4.32. 

5  Garden  City  r.  Abbott.  34  Kan. 
283,  8  Pac.  473. 

6Evers  r.  May  field,  120  Ky.  73. 
8.5  S.  W.  697. 

7  Ex  p.  ^Iimtgoinery.  64  Ala.  463. 
Compare  Ft.  \Aorth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Carlock,  33  'iex.  Civ.  App.  202,  7o 
S.  W.  931.  wherein   it  was  held  that 


the  payment  of  the  license  fee  was 
not  a  condition  i)recedent  to  prac- 
ticing as  an  attorney. 

The  burden  of  proof  in  a  proceed- 
ing to  collect  the  tax  is  on  the  mu- 
nicipality. Ahlrichs  r.  Cullman,  130 
Ala.  439,  30  So.  415. 

8  Ex  p.  Montgomery,  64  Ala.  463; 
Yantis  r.  Lexington.  94  S.  \V.  653. 
29  Ky.  L.  Rep.  689;  St.  Louis  v. 
Sternberg,  69  INIo.  289,  revcrsimj  4 
Mo.  App.  453;  Languille  r.  State,  4 
Tex.  App.  312;  Blanchard  v.  Bristol, 
100  Va.  469,  41  S.  E.  948. 

It  was  contended  in  McCaskell  r. 
State.  o3  Ala.  510,  that,  admitting 
the  tax  to  be  lawful,  yet  it  was  a 
violation  of  the  constitution  to  ])enal- 
ize  nonpayment  with  fine  and  im- 
prisonment;   that   the    tax    when    un- 


104  TAXATIO^'    OF    ATTORNEYS.  [§§    (\8,  (J!) 

a  municipality  may  proceed  by  in  junction  to  restrain  an  attorney 
from  practicing  his  profession  until  the  license  tax  is  paid.^ 

§  68.  Failure  to  Pay  Tax  as  Affecting  Compensation.  — 

Jn  addition  to  the  incurring  of  the  lial)ility,  civil  or  penal,  or  hotli, 
])rovided  for  in  the  statute  by  which  the  tax  is  imposed,  it  seems 
that  an  attorney  who  fails  to  pay  his  occupation  tax  would  nut 
be  able  to  recover  compensation  for  professional  services  rendered 
during  the  period  w^hen  such  taxes  were  due  and  unpaid ;  this 
would  be  especially  true  if  the  statute  made  the  payment  of  the 
tax  a  condition  precedent  to  the  right  to  practice  his  professional 
calling,  in  which  case,  it  seems,  his  failure  to  pay  the  tax  would 
operate  as  if  he  had  never  been  admitted  to  the  bar/°  or  would 
render  his  contract  for  compensation  void.  A  similar  rule  pre- 
vails as  to  the  failure  to  pay  the  tax  imposed  on  the  followers  of 
Either  licensed  occupations.^^  And  the  failure  of  one  member  of 
a  firm  of  lawyers  to  pay  his  tax  invalidates  a  contract  made  with 
the  firm.^^  l]ut  the  failure  of  a  lawyer  to  pay  an  occupation  tax 
will  not  bar  his  right  to  recover  on  a  cause  of  action  assigned  to 
him  by  his  client  as  compensation  for  his  services. ^^ 

liiaalhorlzed  Practice. 

§  69.  Practicing  without  License.  —  In  almost  all  jurisdic- 
tions unlicensed  persons  are  prohibited  from  practicing  law.^*    In 

paid  was  niorely  a  debt,  and  the  con-  H^  See  supra,  §23.     See  also  Hittson 

stitution  ])roliibited  impiisonmeiit  for  r     Browne,    3    Colo.    304;    Tedriek    r. 

del.t.     The  court   lield  that  tliough  a  Uiner,    61    111.    189;    East    St.    Louis 

fax    in    a    general    sense    might    he    a  r.   Freels.  17  111.  App.  339:   Sellers  r. 

(leht.    y.'t    it    was    not    so    witliiii    the  Phillips,    37     111.     Ap]i.     74-.     Hall     V. 

meaning  of  tiie  constitui ion.  l?ishop,  3  Daly    (  \.  V.)    U)!l. 

Ifeafionahlrtirss. — A    liin'    of    Hf(i<ii  lliZl    .\m.  &    Kng.   Knc.  of  7, aw    (2d 

dollars    for    failure    to    secun'    the    li-  cd.  i    SJ3.  S24 :   2.'5  Cyc.  033. 

cense  and   pay  a  tax  of  ten  <loiiars  is  12  .M,  Ivor    r.   Clarke,   09   :\iiss.   408, 

rcasonahh'  as  to  anioiint.      lint  an  iin-  1(.  So.  .")SI. 

jiosition    of  a    jMrialts    ol    lilty   doii;o>  13  K(.    Worth.    ,.tc..    U.    Co.    /'.    (  ar- 

p<T    day     is    unreasonalih'.     il     nccmis.  huk,  .■!3  'lex.  Ci^■.   .\pp.  202.  7-")  S.  W. 

J'.aki  r   r.    Lexington.  .">.';    S.    W  .    l(i.   21  !i;i  I . 

Ky.   I..   i:.'p.  S09.  14||itls<Mi    r.    I'.n.wne.   :!   C(do.   ;!04  : 

estate    /■.    Keniamh'/,.    49    l,a.    .\nn.  lallon    /'.    Stale,    S    (.'a.    App.    4711.    (19 

704,  21    .So.  r,!il.  S,    K.   ,-)92:    itohh   r.   Sniitli.    1    111.    U) ; 


GO] 


TAXATIOX    OF    ATTOIINKVS. 


.lOi 


some  instances  pnnislniients  are  provided  lor  sueli  ])ractiee;  thus 
that  the  offender  becomes  liable  as  for  a  conteiii])t.^^  or  a  mis- 
demeanor.'^^  So,  also,  an  nidieensed  person  caiinor  i'ec<)ver  foi' 
services  rendered  by  him  while  assnniin<i  to  act  as  an  attorney 
at  law.^'  It  is  too  obvions  for  discnssion  that  the  practice  of  law 
is  not  limited  to  the  conduct  of  cases  in  courts. ^^  According-  to 
the  generally  understood  definition  of  the  practice  of  law  in  this 
country,  it  embraces  the  preparation  of  pleadings  and  other  pajiers 
incident  to  actions  and  special  proceedings  and  the  managemeur 


In  re  Spiccr,  Tuck.  (X.  Y.)  80:  Kap- 
lan V.  Bernian,  37  Misc.  502.  75  X. 
Y.  S.  1002.     And  see  supra,  %%  21-27. 

15  In  Colorado  it  is  a  criminal  con- 
tempt of  court  for  any  person,  except 
a  nonresident  attorney  admitted  for 
a  special  occasion,  to  advertise,  repre- 
sent or  hold  himself  out  in  an}'  man- 
ner as  an  attorney,  attorney  at  law, 
or  counselor  at  law.  or  who  shall  ap- 
pear in  any  court  of  record  in  this 
state  to  conduct  a  suit,  action,  pro- 
ceeding, or  cause  for  anotlier  person." 
Colo.  Laws  lOCl.  chap.  77,  p.  157. 
For  technical  violation  of  that  sec- 
tion, one  who  had  hecn  admitted  to  the 
bar  in  several  other  states,  and  had 
removed  to  Colorado,  but  liad  not 
been  admitted  to  general  practice 
there,  was  convicted  in  People  v. 
Kllis,  44  Colo.  176.  96  Pac.  783.  See 
also  People  v.  Erbaugh,  42  Colo.  480, 

94  Pac.  349. 

16  People  r.  Schreiher,  2,")0  111.  345, 

95  X.   E.   189. 

'Sew  York.- — "Practicing  or  appear- 
ing as  attorney  without  being  admit- 
ted and  registered.  —  ...  Any 
person  violating  the  provisions  of  this 
section  is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  dis- 
trict attorneys  to  enforce  the  provi- 
sions of  this  section  and  to  prosecute 


all  violations  thereof."  X.  Y.  Penal 
Law,  §  270. 

'Wove  hut  attorneys  to  practice  in 
Xem  York  city. — A  person  shall  not 
ask  or  receive,  directly  or  indirectly, 
compensation  for  appearing  as  at- 
torney in  a  court  or  before  any  magis- 
trate in  the  city  of  Xew  York,  or 
make  it  a  business  to  practice  as  an 
attorney  in  a  court  or  before  a  magis- 
trate in  said  city,  unless  he  has  been 
regularly  admitted  to  practice,  as 
an  attorney  or  counselor,  in  the 
courts  of  record  of  the  state."  X.  Y. 
Penal  Law,   §  271. 

"f'enalty  for  violation  of  last  sec- 
tio)i. — A  person  who  violates  the 
last  section  is  guilty  of  a  misde- 
meanor, and  shall  he  punished  by 
imprisonment  in  the  county  jail,  not 
exceeding  one  month,  or  by  a  fine  of 
not  less  than  one  hundred  dollars  nor 
more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty 
dollars,  or  by  both  such  fine  and  im- 
prisonment. But  this  and  the  last 
section  do  not  apply  to  a  case  where  a 
person  appears  in  a  cause  to  which  lie 
is  a  party."     X.  Y.  Penal  Law,  §  272. 

17  See  supra,  %  23. 

18  Per  \Voods,  J.  in  In  re  Duncan. 
83  S.  C.  186,  189,  18  Ann.  Cas.  657, 
65  S.  E.  210,  24  L.Pv.A.(X^.S.)  750: 
Com.  u.  Barton,  20  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
447. 


lOG  TAX^VTIO^'    OF   ATTOEXEYS.  [§    09 

of  such  actions  and  proceedings  in  behalf  of  clients  before  judges 
and  courts,  and  in  addition  conveyancing,  the  preparation  of  legal 
instruments  of  all  kinds,^^  and  in  general  all  advice  to  clients  and 
all  actions  taken  for  them  in  matters  connected  with  the  law.^° 
In  Canada  it  was  held  that  a  person  does  ^'directh'  or  indirectly 
practice''  law,  within  the  meaning  of  those  words  in  a  statute, 
when,  and  not  gratuitously,  he  prepares  papers  and  documents 
of  a  legal  character,  to  be  used  in  courts. ■^  In  an  Indiana  case 
the  court  intimated  that  a  county  auditor  forbidden  by  statute 
to  '"'practice  as  an  attorney  before  the  board  of  county  commis- 
sioners" disobeyed  the  statute  by  writing  and  preparing  a  contract 
and  bond  for  a  party  in  connection  with  his  business  before  the 
board,  and  making  a  charge  for  the  service.^  In  the  same  case 
the  court  said :  "As  the  term  is  generally  understood,  the  practice 
of  the  law  is  the  doing  or  performing  services  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice, in  any  matter  depending  therein,  throughout  its  various 
stages,  and  in  conformity  to  the  adopted  rules  of  procedure.  But 
in  a  larger  sense  it  includes  legal  advice  and  counsel,  and  the 
preparation  of  legal  instruments  and  contracts  by  which  legal 
rights  are  secured,  although  such  matter  may  or  may  not  be  de- 
pending in  a  court."  '  A  person  who,  as  a  solicitor,  issued  a  writ, 
made  a  motion  in  court  in  a  single  cpse,  on  behalf  of  the  plaintiff 
in  the  record,  and,  the  motion  being  denied,  carried  an  appeal 
in  the  plaintiif's  name,  was  "practicing"  as  a  solicitor.*  But  a 
person  does  not  "practice"  in  "courts"  as  a  solicitor  unless  he 
takes,  on  behalf  of  a  client,  some  of  the  regular  steps  of  procedure 
in  an  action  or  some  other  judicial  proceeding.^     In  England  it 

19  In  ro  Co-operative  Law  Co.,  JOS  arc  but  steps  in  a  le,i!;al  proceeding 
X.   Y.  479,   19   Ann.  Cas.  879,  92   N.       depending  before  tbe  board." 

K.    1.',,    1.39    Am.     St.     Rep.     839,    32  3  iVr  Lotz,  J.  in  Eley  v.  :\Iiller,  7 

I..i:.A.(.\".S.)    r,5.  1m(1.  App.  529,  34  N.  E.  830. 

20  In  re  Duncan,  83  S.  C.  186,  18  4  In  re  Clarke,  .32  Ont.  237,  dis- 
Ann.  Ca.s.  0.57,  65  S.  E.  210,  24  L.R.A.  tinffHishing  In  re  Horton,  8  Q.  B.  D. 
(X.S.)    750.  (Kng.)    434. 

1  I'er  Draper,  C.  .7.  in  Allen  v.  5  Por  Strong.  ,1.  in  iMacdoiigall  r. 
Jarvis,  32  U.  ('.  ',).  15.  ■)<).  (14.  Ipper  Canada  Law  Soc.,  18  Can.  Sup. 

2  Eley  r.  MIU'T.  7  Ind.  App.  .")l'!I,  .U  Ct.  203.  212,  11  Can.  L.  T.  30,  re- 
X.  E.  830,  llie  court  siiyiii^r  tliat  "tbe  versing  15  Ont.  App.  150,  which 
pffparati'Jii  of  the  contiact  and   bond  nj]\rmc<l   13   Ont.   204. 


§    GJ)]  TAXATIOIS'    or   ATTORXEYS.  107 

was  held  that  an  Tinlieensed  person  who  virtually  carried  on  the 
business  of  solicitor  in  the  name  of  a  licensed  solicitor,  thougli 
with  the  consent  of  the  latter,  violated  a  statute  forbidding  him  to 
"act  as  an  attorney  or  solicitor,''  or  take  proceedings  "in  the  name 
of  any  other  person."  ^  By  a  single  transaction  of  taxing  a  bill 
of  costs,  a  person  did  not  "act  or  practice"  as  an  attorney  within 
the  meaning  of  a  statute,  as  construed  by  its  context.'^  An  un- 
licensed person  who,  as  "agent"  for  a  defendant,  gave  formal 
written  notice  of  appearance  for  the  latter,  violated  a  statute  mak- 
ing it  a  contempt  of  court  for  such  a  person  to  "carry  on"  a  "pro- 
ceeding." ®  A  party  holds  himself  out  to  the  world  as  an  attorney 
in  a  cause  if  it  is  prosecuted,  MMth  his  consent,  by  a  firm  of  at- 
torneys of  which  he  is  a  member,  although  by  the  terms  of  the 
partnership  he  has  no  interest  in  the  particular  case.^  In  Massa- 
chusetts "whoever,  not  having  been  admitted  to  practice  as  an 
attorney  at  law  in  accordance  with  the  provisions"  regulating 
admission,  "represents  himself  to  be  an  attorney  or  counselor  at 
law,  or  to  be  lawfully  qualified  to  practice  in  the  courts  of  this 
commonwealth,  by  means  of  a  sign,  business  card,  letterhead  or 
otherwise,  shall"  be  punished,  etc.^°  By  the  artful  omission  of 
a  comma  in  his  letterhead,  a  collector  of  claims  did  not  save  him- 
self from  conviction  under  that  statute. ^^  An  unlicensed  person 
who  causes  his  name,  followed  by  the  word  "attorney,"  to  be 
]n*inted  in  a  city  directory  and  on  business  cards  and  letterheads, 
Avith  nothing  therein  to  suggest  that  he  is  not  an  attorney  at  law, 
violates  a  statute  forbidding  an  unlicensed  person  to  "hold  himself 
out  in  any  manner  as  an  attorney."  ^^     In  Pennsylvania  a  person 

6  Ahercrombie  r.  Jordan,  8  Q.  B;  D.  9  Erlmonson  r.  Davis,  4  Esp.  (Ei)g. ) 
(Eng. )    ]87.                                                         14.    distinguished   and    criticised    per 

A  fortiori  Avhere  the  person  Avliose  Strong,   J.    in   Macdougall     r.    Upper 

name  was  used  as  a  solicitor  was  not  Canada   Law   Soc.    18    Can.   Sup.    Ct. 

licensed  to  act  as  sucli.  or  if  licensed  203,  216,  reversing  15  Ont.  App.  150, 

did     not    consent    to   the   use   of    liis  which  affirmed  13  Ont.  204. 

name.      In   re  Simmons,    15   Q.   B.   D.  10  Mass.     Rev.     Laws     1902,     chap. 

(Eng.)   348.  105,  §  45,  p.  1483. 

7  In  re  Horton.  8  Q.  B.  D.    (Eng.)  H  Com.  r.  Grant.  201  Mass.  458.  87 
434.  X.  E.  895. 

8  In   re   Ainsworth,    [1905]    2  K.  B.  12  People  v.  Erbaugh,  42  Colo.  480, 
(Eng.)  348.  94  Pac.  349. 


lOS  TAXATION  OF  ATTOUXEYS.  |  i^  <)!» 

mav  not  uiilmvfullv  "hold  himself  oiil  l<i  the  j)nl)lic  as  Ix-iiig  en- 
titled to  practice  law  before  the  courts  of  the  cotmty"  in  which 
lie  resides,  even  if  he  be  a  member  of  the  bar  in  another  comity. ^^ 
It  seems  that  a  person  by  appearing  on  behalf  of  a  defend- 
ant, examining  and  cross-examining  witnesses,  and  arguing  the 
ease,  would  not  violate  a  penal  statute  forl)idding  him  "to  ])ractico 
law  as  an  attorney  in  any  of  the  courts/'  if  he  did  not  claim  or 
receive  any  compensation  for  his  services,  professed  to  act  as 
"agent."  and  did  not  hold  himself  out  to  the  public  as  an  attorney 
at  hnv.^^  So  a  retired  lawyer  who  conducted  one  suit  in  court 
for  a  neighbor,  without  fee  or  reward,  did  not  thereby  become 
indictable  for  practicing  law  without  paying  a  privilege  tax;  for 
the  term  ''practicing"  in  the  statute  implies  something  more  than 
a  single  act  or  effort.^*  Exercise  of  the  duties  or  powers  of  a 
notary  public  is  not  associated  with  what  is  commonly  under- 
stood as  the  practice  of  the  law.''^  Where  a  real  estate  agent  hap- 
pens to  be  a  licensed  attorney,  and  all  he  does  as  an  attorney  is  a 
mere  incident  to  his  real  estate  agency,  he  is  not  exem])t  from 
jury  duty  under  a  statute  exempting  "practicing  attorneys."  ^' 
A  chartered  accountant  having  a  legal  right  to  collect  debts  and 
consequently  to  ask  payment  of  them,  sent  a  dunning  letter  to  a 
debtor,  with  a  threat  of  siiit.  He  did  not  thereby  ''practice  as  an 
atlvocate,"  nor  "usurp  the  functions  of  the  profession"  of  law, 
within  the  prohibition  of  a  statute,  although  his  letter  contained 
an   illegal  charge  for  wi'iting  it.^^     A  person  who  carried  on  the 

13  (  ,„ii.  /•.   I'.iaiitlioovor.  24    Pa.  Co.  l?  Wlicatloy     r.     State.        11        ].oa 

Ct.  ;5r).3,  wlii're  a  jury  convictcil   liiin,  ('I'eiiii.)    2(j2. 

it  .seems,  on  liis  lotterlieads.  18  Montreal   Bar  /■.   IDiUT,  24  (^(iiebec 

Instate  V.    F.rvaii.   its  N.   ('.   (i44.  4  Super.  Ct.  47S.  wherein  St.  Pierre.  .1. 

S.  K.  .")22.  said:      '"What  the   le!iislatiir(>  had   in 

15  .Mc(  a  !■;.'(  I  r.  State.  (.Miss.)  1  So.  \  iew  was  ti)  ])rotec-t  tlie  h',L;al  profes- 
l(il.  the  coui't  savin;.'  tliat  tliis  was  sion  aijainst  tlie  acts  of  those  who 
"no  nioie  a  \iolation  of  law  than  wduld  attempt  to  jjass  themselves  oil' 
it  would  he  for  a  retired  dentist  to  as  lawyers,  and  through  this  decej)- 
nxtract  f^ratuitously  a  tooth  for  an-  tion  exact  fees  which  they  had  no 
oilier  without  first  ohtaininj;  a  privi-  ri^iit  to  dennmd.  'the  practice  of 
leL'e  tax  lieense  as  practieiTi;;  dentists  lawyers  to  write  warniiiL,"'  oi'  con- 
are    recpiin.l    to   do."  ciiiatoi-y    letters   to   the   adxci'sc   party 

16  I'er  hrapei',  ('.  .1.  in  APcii  r.  has  lieeii  so  common  and  so  universal 
.Jarvis.  ;{2   C.  ('.  (.).    I!.  .")(!,  (14.  that   it   may   he  considered  as   part    of 


§  70]  TAXATION  OF  ATTORNEYS.  109 

l)Usinoss  of  a  process  server  and  prepared  the  usual  affidavit  ro- 
latiiiii'  to  service  for  the  use  of  a  solicitor,  by  vvhoin  he  was  cm- 
ployed,  did  not  thereby  "act  as  a  solicitor,"  but  only  for  a  solicitor 
and  in  the  capacity  of  a  witnoss.^^  Nor  did  a  person  "act  as  a 
solicitor"  by  serving  as  an  intermediate  channel  of  commnnica- 
tion  between  a  licensed  solicitor  and  the  probate  office — "simply 
executed  instructions  to  do  ministerial  acts  in  order  to  save  the 
real  solicitor  from  the  trouble  and  expense  of  doing  them,"  re- 
ceiving a  small  payment  from  the  solicitor  for  the  services.^"  A 
})crson  does  not  "practice  as  an  attorney"  by  performing  services 
for  a  party  which  might  have  been  rendered  as  well  by  any  good 
business  man,  and  discussing  questions  of  fact  which  might  have 
been  done  as  well  by  a  layman  as  by  a  lawyer.^  And  for  this  rea- 
son it  seems  that  an  unlicensed  person  may  render  services  in  aid 
of  an  application  for  a  pardon,^  or  for  the  reduction  of  a  claim 
for  taxes. ^  So,  also,  where  a  license  is  not  required  in  order  to 
practice,  as  in  courts  not  of  record,  these  statutes  would  not  be 
applicable.'* 

§  70.  Status   of    Proceedings    by    Unlicensed    Person.  — 

The  clerk  of  a  court  should  nut  put  on  hi.s  (hx'kct  the  name  of 
counsel  not  authorized  to  practice  in  that  court.^  As  a  general 
rule  the  court  will  not  consider  a  brief  filed  by  one  who  is  not  a 

the   exercise   of   their   profession,   but  20  Law   See.  of  United   Kingdom   r. 

1    know    of    no   law     by     which     such  Waterlow,    8    App.    Cas.    (Eng. )    407. 

piactice  might  be  restricted  to  mem-  52  L.  J.  Q.  B.  674,  49  L.  T.  N.  S.  141, 

hers  of  tlie  legal  profession  or  wliich  31   W.  R.  754,  where  Lord  Bramwell 

would  constitute  it  a  privileged  right  said:       "'What     is    done    by     Messrs. 

in  their  favor."  Waterlow    [defendants]    is  not  to  act 

But  see  contra  as  to  similar  letters  as  proctors  but  to  do  sometliing  for  a 

and   threats   by  a   mercantile  agency,  proctor." 

^lontreal  Bar  v.  Sprague's  Mercantile  1  Dunlap  i".  Lebus,  112  Ky.  237,  65 

Agency.    25    Quebec    Super.    Ct.    383.  S.   W.  441. 

Compare   In  re   C ,  5    British   Co-  2  Bird  v.  Breedlove,  24  Ga.  623. 

himbia  530.  3  Dunlap  ('.  Lebus,  112  Ky.  237,  65 

19  In    re    Louis,     [1891]     1     Q.    B.  S.  W.  441,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1481. 

(Eng.)    649.  64  L.  T.  N.  S.  565,  60  L.  «  See  supra,  §  27. 

J.  Q.  B.  500,  39  W.  R.  511.  5  Thorn  v.  Lawson,  6  Tex.  240. 


110  TAXATION  OF  ATTORNEYS.  [§  70 

licensed  attorney,®  and  sncli  briefs  may  be  stricken  from  the  files.'' 
An  action  instituted  and  ])rosecnted  by  a  person  who  is  not  an 
attorney  of  the  court,  but  an  "agent"  or  "attorney  in  fact''  of  the 
plaintiff,  may  properly  be  dismissed,  if  no  statute  authorizes  him 
to  do  such  acts.*  And  if  he  attempts  to  prosecute  a  writ  of  error 
to  review  the  judgment  of  dismissal,  in  a  court  where  he  is  not 
licensed  to  practice,  the  writ  will  be  dismissed.^  Under  the  Xew 
A'ork  code  ^°  it  has  been  held  that  a  judgment  obtained  in  favor 
of  a  litigant  who  was  represented  by  an  unlicensed  person  will 
be  reversed, ^^  the  theory  being  that,  under  the  code,  tlie  unlicensed 
person,  and  the  judge  who  permitted  him  to  represent  a  party  in 
court,  were  both  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and,  therefore,  such  il- 
legality in  the  proceeding  necessarily  affected  the  validity  of  the 
judgment.  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  liew  York  cases 
would  be  approved  in  any  other  jurisdiction.  It  would  seem  to 
be  much  more  in  accordance  with  law  and  reason,  not  that  the 
judgment  should  be  declared  void,  but  that  the  offenders  should 
suffer  the  punishment  imposed  by  law.'^^  And  it  has  also  been 
held  in  Xew  York  that  a  regularly  licensed  attorney,  who  sent 
an  unlicensed  person  to  represent  him  in  the  Municipal  Court, 
could  not  afterwards  complain  that  such  representative  was  for- 
bidden to  practice. ^^     In  a  Pennsylvania  case,   where  a  praecipe 

6Dnyster  V.  Crawford,  69  N.  J.  L.  8  Harkins  v.  Murphy,  51  Tex.  Civ. 

229,   54   Atl.  823;    Leaver  r.   Kilmer,  App.  568,   112  S.  W.    136.     See    also 

71  N.  J.  L.  291,  59  Atl.  643.  Robb  t'.  Smith,  4  111.  46;  McKoan  r. 

In  Fallon  v.  State,  8  Ga.  A])p.  470,  Devries,   3   Barb.    (N.  Y.)    196.     But 

09  S.  E.  592.  briefs  on  behalf  of  the  compare  Rader  v.  Snyder,   3  W.  Va. 

state  in  a  criminal  case  were  filed  in  413. 

the  Court  of  Ajjpeals    by    attorneys,  9  Harkins  v.  Murpliy,   51  Tex.  Civ. 

one     of     them     the     acting     solicitor  App.  508,  112  S.  W.  130. 

p;oneral,    wlio    \\crc    mombors  of   the  10  §g  (53^  04  Code  Civ.  Pro. 

liar  of  the  Supreme  Court,  but  not  of  H  Kaplan  v.  Borman,  37  Misc.  502. 

the    Court    of    Appeals.      The    court  75    N.    Y.    S.     1002 :     Newburger    r. 

said  the  briefs  could  not  be  received  Campbell,  58  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    313, 

as  briefs  of  counsel,  and  could  be  con-  9  Daly  102.    See  also  Roy  r.  Harlcy,  I 

si(i(  red    only    for    purposes    of    infor-  Duer.   (N.  Y.)  037. 

Illation;    and    "for    informal    appear-  12  See  Rader  v.  Snyder,   3   W.  Va. 

ancoH  of  tliis  character"  tlie  court  de-  413. 

(•liiied   to  tax   tlic   usual    fee   as  costs  13  Kerr    V.    Walter,    104    App.    Div. 

ill   the  case.  45,  93  N.  Y.  S.  311. 

7  Ellis      /■.      r.iiigluim      County,      7 
I. hi  Ik.  ho,  00   I'ac.  79. 


§  71] 


TAXATION  OF  ATTORNEYS. 


Ill 


lor  a  fi.  fa.  was  issued  by  an  attorney  not  admitted  to  practice  in 
the  county,  and  the  prothonotary,  who  could  have  refused  to  recog- 
nize it,  accepted  it  and  issued  the  writ  in  due  form,  it  was  held 
that  subsequent  licnholders  had  no  standing  to  set  it  aside,  and 
the  court  doubted  whether  the  defendant  himself  could  be  heard 
to  eoni])lain.^* 

§  71.  Certain  Officers  Prohibited  from  Practicing  as 
Attorneys  at  Law.  —  While  a  suitor  has  an  undoubted  right 
to  be  heard  by  his  counsel  whenever  he  presents  such  as  are  not 
legally  disqualified,  this  right  is  not  at  all  inconsistent  with 
the  right  of  the  legislature  to  say  who  may  be  attorneys,  and 
in  what  cases  they  may  or  may  not  appear,  providing,  of  course, 
that  such  legislation  is  otherwise  unobjectionable.^*  Thus  the 
legislative  body  may  properly  say  that  a  justice  of  the  peace 
shall  not  appear  as  attorney  for  any  person  in  the  county  for 
which  he  may  be  appointed ;  ^^  that  no  clerk  of  any  court  of 
record  shall  act  as  attorney  in  the  court  of  which  he  is  clerk ;  " 
that  a  judge  shall  not  practice  ^*  nor  shall  his  clerk  or  law  partner 
practice  before  him.^^     ]S[or  shall  a  person  holding  the  office  of  a 


14  Hooven  ^Mercantile  Co.  r.  Mor- 
jiaii,  15  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  567,  4  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct.  48. 

15  West  Feliciana  R.  Co.  r.  John- 
son, 5  How.  (Miss.)  273,  wherein  it 
was  said  that  the  constitution,  in 
securing  to  all  peisons  the  right  to 
be  heard  in  court,  by  themselves  or 
counsel,  does  not  mean  that  no  limi- 
tations can  be  imposed  by  law  upon 
the  admissibility  of  attorneys.  If  so, 
none  of  the  various  regulations 
adopted  from  time  to  time,  as  to  the 
mode  of  admitting  attorneys  to  the 
bar,  and  their  expulsion  for  improper 
or  criminal  behavior,  could  be  sus- 
tained. As  officers  of  the  courts  in 
which  they  practice,  they  are  subject 
to  be  silenced,  and  totally  disqualified 
from  appearing  as  attorneys,  for  im- 
proper conduct. 


16  West  Feliciana  R.  Co.  i".  John- 
son, 5  How.   (Miss.)  273. 

17  West  Feliciana  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 5  How.  (Miss.)  273;  Ex  p.  Col- 
lins, 2  Va.  Cas.  222. 

K  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  61,  prohibits 
the  clerk  of  a  court  from  practicing  as 
an  attorney  during  his  term  of  office. 
In  Cronin  "r.  O'Reiley,  7  N.  Y.  S.  337, 
it  was  held  that  where  a  member  of  a 
tirm  of  attorneys  is  appointed  clerk, 
the  remaining  member  may  proceed 
in  a  cause  Avithout  an  order  of  substi- 
tution. 

18  Lilly  r.  State,  7  Okla.  Crim.  284, 
323  Pac.  575. 

19  "The  law  partner  or  clerk  of  a 
judge  shall  not  practice  before  him 
as  attorney  or  counselor  in  any 
cause,  or  be  employed  in  any  cause 
whicli  originated  before  him.  A 
law  partner   of,   or   person  connected 


112 


TAXATION    OF    ATTORXEYS. 


[§  Tl 


l»ank  director  appear  as  attorney  for  the  bank.^**  So  referees  in 
liankniptcy  are  forbidden  to  practice  as  attorneys  and  counselors 
at  law  in  any  bankruptcy  proceeding.^  In  the  absence  of  statutory 
inhibition,  however,  there  could  be  no  objection  to  such  officers 
practicing  as  attorneys,  at  least  in  courts  other  than  those  to  which 
they  are  accredited.^  The  partners  of  prosecuting  attorneys  are 
sometimes  prohibited  from  defending  criminal  cases  ^  though  one 
holding  such  an  office  may  have  a  partner  in  civil  business.* 


in  law  business  witli,  a  judge  sliall 
not  practice  or  act  as  an  attorney  or 
counselor  in  a  court  of  which  the 
judge  is  or  is  entitled  to  act  as  a 
member,  or  in  a  cause  originating 
in  that  court,  except  where  the  latter 
is  a  member  of  a  court  ex  officio,  and 
does  not  officiate  or  take  part,  as  a 
member  of  that  court,  in  any  of  the 
proceedings  therein."  Sec.  471  of  the 
X.  Y.  .Tudiciarv  Law. 

20  West  Feliciana  R.  Co.  v.  John- 
son, 5  How.    (Miss.)    273. 

1§  39b  (2)  of  the  Bankruptcy  Aot 
(1  Fed.  Stat.  Annot.  p.  O.iO— Supp. 
]9]2,  p.  666). 

2  Thus  in  a  Miciiigan  case  it  was 
held  that  one  of  tlie  justices  of  the 
peace  of  Crand  Rapids  may  act  as  at- 
torney, in  a  circuit  court,  in  a  cause 
appealed  from  the  other  justice:  tiie 
said  justices  having  separate  courts 
and  records,  and  there  being  no  stat- 
ute forbidding  them  so  to  act.  Grady 
r.  .Sullivan,  112  Mich.  4.")S.  70  N.  W. 
1040.  4  Detroit  Leg.  N.  .")2. 

3 'I'he  statute  of  Missouri  (see. 
10;iO,  R.  S.  100!))  forbidding  partners 
ot  pro.secuting  attorneys  from  defend 
ing  in  eriniinal  cases,  does  not  apply 
to  I  iiitcd  States  district  attorney,-- 
practicing  in  tlie  federal  louit.  .Mat 
ler  of  Lyon>.  Hij;  M.i.  .\\>\>.  liSS.  1-1.") 
S.   W.  844. 

\fir    ror/.-.— '"All    attdiiiey    wild   di 
recth      or      iinlii  eel  1\-     adxises    in    ri'- 


lation  to,  or  aids  or  promotes  the 
defense  of  any  action  or  proceeding 
in  any  court,  the  prosecution  of 
which  is  carried  on,  aided  or  pro- 
moted by  a  person  as  district  at- 
torney or  other  public  prosecutor, 
w  itii  wliom  such  attorney  is  directly 
or  indirectly  connected  as  a  partner; 
or  who.  having  himself  prosecuted 
o.-  in  any  nuinner  aided  or  promoted 
any  action  or  proceeding  in  any 
court,  as  district  attorney  or  other 
public  prosecutor,  afterwards  direct- 
ly or  indirectly  advises  in  relation  to. 
or  takes  any  part  in.  the  defense 
thereof,  as  attorney  or  otherwise;  or 
who  takes  or  leceives  any  valuable 
consideration  from  or  on  behalf  of 
any  defendant  in  any  such  action, 
upon  any  understanding  or  agree- 
ment whatever,  express  or  implied, 
having  relation  to  the  defense  there- 
of, is  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and 
on  conviction  thereof,  shall  be 
[iiinished  accordingly,  and  must  be 
reiiuived  from  office  by  the  Supreme 
Court."      N.   V.   i'enal    Law,  t?  278. 

Attonieijs  hiaif  defend  themselves. 
— "'riie  last  section  does  not  jiroliibit 
an  altoiiiey  from  defending  liimself 
ill  persdii.  as  altdrney  or  as  coiinsel, 
when  prusecut  eil  either  ciN'illy  or 
eriminally."     X.  ^■.   I'enal   Law,  t?  270. 

4  Matter  i)f  Lyons.  102  .Mo.  App. 
OSS,    It.-.   S.    W.  S-11. 


CHAPTER    IV. 

PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS.    DISABILITIES— LIBEL    AND    SLANDER. 

Privileges  and  Exemptions  in  General. 

§  72.  Generally. 

73.  Privilege  frona  Arrest. 

74.  Privilege  from  Service  of  Process. 

As  to  Language  Used  by  Attorney  in  Judicial  Proceedings. 

75.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Pertinent. 

76.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Not  Pertinent. 

77.  Communications  between  Attorney  and  Client. 

78.  Rule  in  England  and  in  Canada. 

Disahilities. 

79.  Generally. 

80.  Attorneys  Becoming  Surety. 

81.  Validity  and  Effect  of  Bond  Given  by  Attorney  in  Violation  of  Statute 

or  Rule  of  Court. 

82.  Attornev  Acting  as  Notary  Public  in  Client's  Affairs. 

lAhel  and  Slander. 

83.  Generally. 

84.  Actionable  Language. 
So.  Nonactionable  Language. 

Privileges  and  Exemptions  in   General. 

§  72.  Generally.  —  At  comDion  law  an  attorney  was  entitled 
to  certain  privileges  by  virtue  of  his  office.  These  were  allowed 
for  the  benefit  of  suitors  and  in  the  interest  of  the  due  adminis- 
tration of  justice,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  the  attorney.^     In 

1  Greenleaf    r.    Peoples    Bank,    133      also  Varian  r.  Ogilvie.  3  Johns.    (N. 
N.    C.    292,    45    S.    E.    638,    98    Am.      Y.)     450;     Moulton     r.    Hubbard,    6 
St.    Rep.    709,    63    L.R.A.    499.      See      Johns,    (N.  Y.)    332;   Walsh  v.  Sack- 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 8.  j^^g 


114 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


L§ 


addition  to  the  privileges  and  exemptions  considered  in  the  suc- 
ceeding sections,  attorneys  were  held  to  be  exempt  from  filling- 
certain  minor  offices,  such  as  sheriff,^  overseers  of  the  poor,  super- 
visors of  public  roads  and  highways,  and  constable.^  Attorneys 
M'ere  also  exempt  from  jury  service,  and  are  so  now  in  some  juris- 
dictions.* The  exemption  did  not,  however,  extend  to  military 
service.*  Attorneys  were  also  privileged,  under  the  common  law, 
with  respect  to  the  courts  wherein  they  might  sue  and  be  sued 
as  litigants.  This  privilege,  however,  while  in  force  in  the  early 
days  in  some  of  the  states,®  is  now  obsolete.  Attorneys  are  now 
sued,  and  generally  may  sue,  without  regard  to  their  occupa- 
tion.''^ All  of  these  privileges  ceased  when  the  attorney  ceased  to 
practice  his  professional  calling,^  or,  of  course,   when  abrogated 


rider,  7  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  537;  Willett 
r.  Starr,  8  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  123;  In  re 
Bailey,  1  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  32; 
Wood  V.  Gibson,  1  Cow.   (N.  Y.)   597. 

Right  to  Attend  Court. — When  a 
court  room  is  so  crowded  tliat  more 
people  cannot  be  admitted  without 
producing  disorder  and  confusion, 
neither  a  member  of  the  bar  nor  any 
other  person  has  a  right  to  enter,  un- 
less for  purposes  immediately  con- 
nected with  the  business  then  before 
the  court  or  demanding  its  im- 
mediate attention.  If  he  insists  on 
entering,  against  the  objection  of  the 
officer  at  the  door,  tlie  latter  may  use 
sufficient  force  to  eject  him.  In  re 
Attorneys,  30  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  N.  S. 
(Pa.)   362. 

Leave  of  Absence. — Wliere  counsel 
lias  leave  of  absence,  this  dispenses 
with  tlie  discharge  of  any  and  every 
jirofessional  duty  imposed  upon  iiim  by 
Ibr-  business  of  the  coiii-t  at  tliat 
term,  ilaniiitoii  v.  (onyers,  25  Oa. 
158. 

But  leave  of  nbseiice  of  counsel 
diM'.H  not  exteml  t(»  :my  otlicr  cases 
lliiiii   those   in   whicli    lie  a[i)i(ins  to  be 


of    counsel    on     the    dockets    of    the 
court.     White  v.  Haslett,  49  Ga.  280. 

2  Mayor  v.  Berry,  1  W.  Bl.  (Eng.) 
636,  4  Burr.  2109. 

In  Stone's  Case,  1  Lev.  (Eng.) 
265,  it  was  held  that  an  attorney 
copyholder  was  privileged  from  being 
reeve  by  custom. 

3  Respubliea  v.  Fisher,  1  Yeates 
(Pa.)   350. 

4  In  re  Swett,  20  Pick.    (Mass.)    1. 

5  Gerard's  Case,  2  W.  Bl.  (Eng.) 
1123;  Matter  of  Bliss,  9  Johns  (N. 
Y.)  347;  Respubliea  r.  Fisher,  1 
Yeates  (Pa.)  350.  Compare  Eving- 
don's  Case,  2  Stra.   (Eng.)    1130. 

6  See  infra,  §  74.  See  also  Wal- 
ford  V.  Fleetwood,  14  M.  &  W.  (Eng.) 
449;  Rastrick  V.  Beckwith,  2  Dowl.  & 
L.  (Eng.)  624;  Hern  v.  Howard,  1 
W.  Bl.  (Eng.)  231;  Brooks  v.  Patter- 
son, 2  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  102;  Scott 
t\  Van  Alstyne,  9  Jolms.  (N.  Y. ) 
216;  Colt  f.  Gregory,  3  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
22;  Cole  V.  IMeCIellaii.  4  Hill  (N.  Y.) 
59. 

'See  infra.   S74. 

8  Mayor  r.  Berry,  1   W.  Bl.    (Eng.) 


§  73] 


PRIVn-EGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


Hi 


by  statute.^  The  privilege  as  to  confirlential  communications  pass- 
ing between  attorney  and  client  has  been  considered  in  another 
place.^" 

§  73.  Privilege  from  Arrest.  —  At  common  law  an  attorney 
was  privileged  from  arrest  on  civil  process/^  especially  Avliile 
attending  court,  and  on  his  way  to  and  returning  from  court.^^ 
It  seems  that  such  privilege  was  not  allowed  in  criminal  cases, 
because  it  could  not  be  claimed  as  against  the  king.^^  Nor  did 
it  extend  to  an  attorney  going  to  attend  a  court  in  Avhich  he  was 
not  admitted  to  practice,"  or  to  an  attorney  who  was  about  to 
leave  the  country,^*  or  to  one  who  represented  a  surety  only.^^ 


N.  Y. 


Leather 
In     re 


G36;    Brooks   r.   Patterson,   Col.   &    C. 
Cas.   (N.  Y.)    133. 

9  Matter  of  Bliss.  9  Johns 
347. 

10  See  infra,  §  92  et  seq. 

11  England. — Atty.-Gen.  v. 
Sellers'  Co.,  7  Beav.  157 
Sheriff  of  Kent,  2  C.  &  K.  197,  61  E. 
C.  L.  197;  Jones  v.  Marshall.  2  C.  B. 
N.  S.  615,  89  E.  C.  L.  615,  3  Jur.  N. 
S.  916;  Phillips  v.  Pound,  7  Exch. 
881,  16  Jur.  645.  See  also  Williams 
V.  Webb,  2  Dowl.  N.  S.  904,  5  Scott 
N.  R.  898. 

l^eio  Jersey. — Ogden  r.  Hughes,  5 
X.  J.  L.  718. 

yew  York. — Brooks  c.  Patterson, 
2  Johns.  Cas.  102,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  133; 
Emmet's  Case,  2  Cai.  387 ;  Scott  v. 
Van  Alstyne,  9  Johns.  216;  Webb  v. 
Cleveland,  9  Johns.  266;  Gibbs  V. 
Loomis,  10  Johns.  463;  Tiffany  v. 
Uriggs,  13  Johns.  252:  Secor  r.  Bell, 
18  Johns.  52;  Colt  r.  Gregory.  3 
Cow.  22;  Gay  r.  Rogers,  3  Cow.  368: 
Willard  r.  Sperry.  1  Wend.  32;  Corey 
''.  Russell,  4  Wend.  204;  Humphrey 
V.  Gumming,  .l  \\'ond.  90:  Bohanan  r. 
Peterson,  9  Wend.  503;  Cob  v.  Mc- 
Clollan,  4  Hill  59. 


Virginia. — Com.  r.  Ronald,  4  Call. 
97. 

12  Webb    r.    Taylor,   1   Dowl.  &   L. 

(Eng.)  676,  8  Jur.  39;  In  re  Hope.  9 
Jur.  (Eng.)  856;  In  re  Hippisley, 
cited   in   Meekins   v.   Smith,    1   H.   El. 

(Eng.)    636. 

13  Kirkham  r.  Whaley,  1  Ld.  Rayni. 
(Eng.)  27.  See  also  Payne's  Case,  1 
Leon.  8],  74  Eng.  Rep.  (Reprint)  743. 

14  Price  f.  Clutterbuck,  1  F.  &  F. 
(Eng.)   379. 

15  Thompson  r.  Moore,  1  Dowl.  N. 
S.  (Eng.)  283,  5  Jur.  1009;  Flight 
V.  Cooke,  8  Jur.  (Eng.)  125,  1  Dowl. 
&  L.  174,  13  L.  J.  Q.  B.  78. 

16  Jones  r.  Marshall,  2  C.  B.  X.  S. 
615,  89  E.  C.  L.  615,  26  L.  J.  C.  PI, 
229,  wherein  it  was  held  that  an  at- 
torney who  attended  on  the  occasion 
when  his  client  became  bail  for  a 
defendant  in  an  action  in  the  lord 
mayor's  court,  and  who  acted  tliere 
only  as  the  attorney  and  adviser  of 
such  bail,  and  not  as  the  attorney 
and  adviser  for  either  of  the  parties 
to  the  cause,  was  not  privileged  from 
arrest  in  going  to  or  returning  from 
the  court  on  such  occasions. 


116 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


[§  T4 


So,  also,  on  the  theory  that  an  attorney  was  presumed  to  be  always 
in  attendance  at'  court,  it  was  held  that  he  conld  not  be  arrested 
on  civil  process  at  any  time.^'  This  is  of  little  importance  now, 
however,  that  imprisonment  for  debt  has  been  generally  abolished. 
But  it  is  just  as  essential  now  as  it  ever  was,  that  attorneys  should 
not  be  arrested,  at  least  without  the  permission  of  the  court,  while 
actually  engaged  in  court  in  the  trial  or  argument  of  a  cause.  To 
this  extent  only  the  privilege  has  been  approved  in  this  country ;  ^' 
to  carry  it  any  further  would  not  only  be  unnecessary,  but  actually 
detrimental  to  lawyers  as  having  a  tendency  to  separate  them  from 
the  general  public.^^  Even  though  entitled  to  the  privilege,  an 
attorney  may  waive  it  either  expressly,  or  impliedly  by  failing  to 
assert  it.^° 

§  74.  Privilege  from  Service  of  Process.  —  In  several  juris- 
dictions it  has  been  held  that  an  attorney  is  privileged  from  the 
service  of  process  while  in  attendance  at  court  in  his  professional 
capacity ;  ^  and  this  privilege  has  been  extended  to  the  going  to 


17  3  Bl.  torn.  289. 

18  Bobbins  v.  Lincoln,  27  Fed.  342 
(denied  under  an  Illinois  statute)  ; 
Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Milwaukee  St.  R. 
Co.,  74  Fed.  442;  Elam  v.  Lewis,  19 
Ga.  608;  Corey  V.  Russell,  4  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  204;  Greenleaf  v.  People's 
Bank,  133  N.  C.  292,  45  S.  E.  038, 
98  Am.  St.  Rep.  709,  03  L.R.A.  499; 
Respublica  v.  Fisher,  1  Yeates  (Pa.) 
350. 

Michigan. — "No  attorney,  solicitor, 
or  counselor  shall  be  exempt  from 
arrest  durinj^  the  sitting  of  tlie  court 
of  wiiicli  lie  is  an  ofTiccr.  unless  he 
shall  be  employed  in  some  cause  pend- 
ing and  tlum  to  he  lieard  in  siu-li 
court."  I  lolViniiii  /'.  I'.ay  Cir.  .hidge, 
113  Midi.  10!),  71  X.  W.  480,  07  Am. 
St.  Rep.  458,  38  L.R.A.  603,  qiiotiini 
from  2  How.  Stat.  S  7253. 

\eic  York. — An  olliccr  of  ;i  court  nf 
record,  appointed  or  clcctcil    pnrssiiiiit 


to  law,  is  privileged  from  arrest,  dur- 
ing the  actual  sitting,  which  he  is 
required  to  attend,  of  a  term  of  the 
court  of  Avhich  he  is  an  officer,  and 
no  longer;  but  an  attorney  or  coun- 
sellor is  not  thus  privileged,  unless 
he  is  employed  in  a  cause,  to  be  heard 
at  that  term.  §  505  N.  y.  Code  Civ. 
Pro.,  and  §  24  N.  Y.  Civil  Rights 
Law. 

19  Elam  V.  Lewis.  19  Ga.  008. 

20  Cole  r.  McClelhui,  4  Hill  (X. 
Y.)    59. 

1  Central  Trust  Co.  r.  Milwaukee 
St.  U.  Co.,  74  Fed.  442;  Mitchell  r. 
Huron  Cir.  Judge,  53  Mich.  541,  19 
N.  W.  ]76;  Cofrode  v.  Wayne  (  ir. 
Judge,  79  Mich.  332,  44  X.  W.  023,  7 
L,h\A.  511;  Hoffman  v.  Hay  (  ir, 
.liid.-e,  113  Mich.  109,  71  N.  W.  480. 
07  Am.  St.  Rei),  458.  38  L.R.A.  003; 
M;it1licws  /■,  Tufts,  87  X.  Y.  508; 
W  liiUiKiii   r.  Sliicts,   11   Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 


§   T4] 


I'lUVI  LEGES,    EXEMI'TIO-NS,    DlSAlilLITIES. 


117 


and  returning  from  an  appellate  eourt.^  Such  immimity  is 
deemed  necessary  to  the  due  administration  of  justice.'  It  has 
also  been  held  that  this  privilege  is  not  ati'ected  by  the  fact  that 
a  statute  provides  for  exemption  from  arrest,  and  fails  to  pro- 
vide for  exemption  from  service  of  process,  during  attendance  at 
court ;  *  but  in  Xew  York,  where  a  statute  of  this  kind  is  in  force, 
it  was  held,  although  the  practice  was  censured,  that  an  attorney 
might  be  lawfully  served  with  civil  process  notwithstanding  his 
presence  in  court  for  a  professional  purpose ;  ^  and  a  like  decision 
was  rendered  by  a  federal  court  in  construing  an  Illinois  statute.^ 


]79,  20  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  1;  Young  V. 
Armstrong,  13  W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  313; 
Williams  V.  Hatcher.  93  S.  C.  49,  78 
S.  E.  615. 

2  Hoffman  v.  Bay  Cir.  .Judge,  113 
Mich.  109,  71  N.  W.  480,  07  Am.  St. 
Rep.  458,  38  L.R.A.  603,  4  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  165. 

3  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  Milwaukee 
St.  R.  Co.,  74  Fed.  442;  Hoffman  v. 
Bay  Cir.  Judge,  113  Mich.  109,  71 
N.  W.  480,  67  Am.  St.  Rep.  458,  38 
L.R.A.  663;  Massey  v.  Colville,  45  X. 
J.  L.  119,  46  Am.  Rep.  754;  Matthews 
r.  Tufts,  87  X.  Y.  508. 

4  Hoffman  v.  Bay  Cir.  Judge,  113 
.Mich.  109,  71  N.  W.  480,  67  Am.  St. 
Kcp.  458,  38  L.R.A.  663,  4  Detroit 
Leg.  X.   165. 

5  In  X'ational  Press  Intelligence  Co. 
r.  Brooke,  18  Misc.  373,  41  X.  Y. 
S.  658,  it  was  held  that  by  virtue  of 
statute  service  of  an  order  of  supple- 
mentary proceedings  on  an  attorney 
while  in  court  in  his  capacity  as  at- 
torney for  the  purpose  of  arguing  a 
pending  motion  was  valid.  The  court 
said:  "At  common  law  and  prior  to 
the  Revised  Statutes,  an  attorney  was 
exempted  from  arrest  or  being  sued 
during  the  actual  sitting  of  the  court 


of  wliich  he  was  an  officer,  if  he  was 
employed  in  some  cause  pending  and 
then  to  be  heard  in  such  court,  sundo, 
morando,  redeundo  (which  means  go 
ing,  remaining  and  returning).  Gil- 
bert r.  Vanderpool,  15  Johns.  242 ; 
Van  Alstyne  v.  Dearborn,  2  Wend. 
586.  But  the  Revised  Statutes,  part 
III,  chapter  3,  title  2,  section  86, 
changed  the  law  so  as  to  restrict  the 
privilege  so  that  they  were  'exempt 
from  arrest  during  the  sitting  of  the 
court  of  which  he  is  an  officer,'  if  he 
v.as  'employed  in  some  cause  pending 
and  then  to  be  heard  in  such  court.' 
While  I  cannot  too  strongly  condemn 
the  propriety  of  serving  papers  on  an 
attorney  in  open  court,  I  think  such 
service  is  legal.  The  reason  of  ex- 
emption prior  to  the  Revised  Stat- 
utes was  'not  to  take  away  an  at- 
torney while  in  court  in  discharge  of 
his  duty  by  a  ca.  sa.,  by  which  a 
suit  was  then  instituted.'  Under  the 
present  procedure,  a  service  of  sum- 
mons or  order  would  not  interfere 
with  such  a  discharge  of  his  duties. 
The  reason  for  the  exemption  having 
ceased  to  exist,  the  maxim  cessante 
ratione,  cessat  lex  applies." 

6Robbins   V.  Lincoln,   27   Fed.  342. 


118 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


[i 


The  privilege  of  exemption  from  service  of  process  while  in  at- 
tendance at  court  is  denied  in  Xorth  Carolina."^ 

As  to  Language  Used  hij  Attorney  in  Judicial  Proceedings. 

§   75.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Pertinent.  —  In  the  United 

States  the  rule  is  well  settled  that  attorneys  conducting  judicial 
proceedings  are  privileged  from  prosecution  for  libel  or  slander  in 
respect  to  words  or  writings  used  in  the  course  of  such  proceedings 
reflecting  injuriously  upon  others,  when  such  words  and  writings 
are  material  and  pertinent  to  the  question  involved.  Within  this 
limit  the  protection  is  complete,  irrespective  of  the  motive  with 
which  the  words  or  writings  are  used.  But  the  privilege  does  not 
extend  to  matter  having  no  materiality  or  pertinency  to  the  ques- 
tion involved  in  the  suit.^     In  approving  this  rule,  Parkhill,  J., 


7Greenleaf  v.  Peoples'  Bank,  133 
N.  C.  292,  45  S.  E.  638,  98  Am.  St. 
Eep.  709,  63  L.E.A.  499,  wherein  the 
court  said :  "In  a  very  few  states  of 
the  Union  the  courts  liave  lield  that 
attorneys  at  law,  while  in  attendance 
upon  court,  are  exempted  from  the 
service  of  summons  or  other  process 
not  in  arrest;  but  the  reasoning  upon 
wliich  those  decisions  are  based  is  not 
satisfactory  to  us.  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  privilege  of  exemp- 
tion from  arrest  afforded  to  attor- 
neys while  attending  court  is  not  so 
mucii  for  the  benefit  of  tlie  lawyers 
as  it  is  for  tlieir  client,  and  for  tne 
aid  tliey  give  to  tlie  court  as  olHcers 
thereof  in  the  due  administration  of 
justice." 

6  Mdhduin. — T-awson  r.  Hicks,  3S 
Ala.  279.  81  Am.  Dec.  49. 

California. — Ilollis  r.  ^Icux,  ()9  ("al. 
628,  1 1  Pac.  248,  .')8  Am.  Rep.  574 : 
Carpenter  v.  Asiiley,  148  Cal.  422,  7 
Ann.  (as.  601,  83  Pac.  444;  Gosewisch 
V.  Doran,   161    Cal.  511,  119  I'ac.  656. 


Florida. — Myers  V.  Hodges,  53  Fia. 
197,  44  So.  357. 

Georgia. — Lester  V.  Thurmond.  51 
Ga.  118;  Conley  r.  Key,  98  Ga.  115, 
25  S.  E.  914;  Atlanta  News  Pub. 
Co.  r.  Medlock,  123  Ga.  719,  51  S.  E. 
756,  3  L.R.A.(KS.)   1139. 

Illinois. — See  McDavitt  v.  Boyer, 
169  111.  475,  48  N.  E.  317;  Burdette 
r.  Argile,  94  111.  App.  171. 

Kentucky. — Morgan  v.  Booth,  13 
Bush  481  ;  Stewart  r.  Hall,  83  Ky. 
375. 

Louisiana.  —  Lescale  v.  Joscpli 
Schwartz  Co.,  118  La.  718,  43  So.  385. 
See  also  reading  matter  at  end  of  tliis 
note. 

Maryland. — Maulsby  r.  Reifsnider, 
69  Md.  154,  14  Atl.  505. 

Massachusetts. — Iloar  r.  Wood,  3 
Met.  193;  Rice  r.  Coolidge,  121  Mass. 
393,  23  Am.  Rep.  279;  McLaughlin  r. 
Ciiwh'v.  127  Mass.  316,  affirmed  131 
Mass.  70. 

Mirhif/an. — Hartung  r.  Sliaw,  130 
Mich.  177,  89  N.  W.  701. 


75] 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIOXS,    DISABILITIES. 


119 


said :  "In  coming  to  this  conclusion,  we  are  not  unmindful  of  the 
weighty  reasons  advanced  in  favor  of  the  English  doctrine  of  abso- 
lute privilege  for  defamatory  words  published  in  the  course  of  ju- 
dicial proceedings ;  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  public  that  great 
freedom  should  be  allowed  in  complaints  and  allegations  with  a 
view  to  have  them  inquired  into,  and  that  parties  and  counsel 
should  be  indulged  with  great  latitude  in  the  freedom  of  speech 
in  the  conduct  of  their  causes  in  courts  and  in  asserting  their 
rights,  because  in  this  way  the  purposes  of  justice  will  be  sub- 
served, and  the  court  can  and  will  protect  the  party  aggrieved  by 
expunging  irrelevant,  defamatory  matter  from  the  pleadings,  and 
by  punishing  for  contempt  of  court  the  guilty  party.  We  think 
the  ends  of  justice  will  be  effectually  accomplished  by  not  extend- 
ing the  privilege  so  far  as  to  make  it  an  absolute  exemption  from 


Ifew  York. — Gilbert  v.  People,  1 
Den.  41,  43  Am.  Dec.  646;  King  v. 
Wheeler,  7  Cow.  725 ;  Hastings  r. 
Lusk,  22  Wend.  410,  34  Am.  Dec.  330; 
Dada  v.  Piper,  41  Hun  256,  2  X.  Y. 
St.  Rep.  152;  Marsh  r.  Ellsworth,  50 
N.  Y.  309;  Sickles  V.  Kling,  60  App. 
Div.  515,  69  N.  Y.  S.  944;  Youmans 
V.  Smith,  153  N.  Y.  214,  47  N.  E. 
265. 

North  Carolina. — Shelfer  v.  Good- 
ing, 47  N.  C.  175. 

Pennsylvania. — Com.  v.  Culver.  1 
Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  363,  2  Pa.  L.  J.  301. 
See  also  Com.  v.  Godshalk,  13  Phila. 
575,  34  Leg.  Int.  312. 

South  Carolina. — Vausse  r.  Lee,  1 
Hill  L.  197,  26  Am.  Dec.  168. 

Tennessee. — Davis  r.  McNees,  8 
Humpli.  40. 

Texas. — Kruegel  r.  Cockrell.  151 
S.  W.  352. 

Vermont. — Mower  v.  Watson.  11 
Vt.  536,  34  Am.  Dec.  704. 

Washington. — Miller  r.  Gust,  71 
Wash.  139,  127  Pac.  845. 

Wisconsin. — Jennings  v.  Paine,  4 
Wis.  358. 


A  somewhat  different  rule  has  been 
laid  down  in  Louisiana  as  follows: 
"The  best  rule  is,  we  think,  to  pro- 
tect counsel  for  everything  they  say 
wliich  is  pertinent  to  the  cause,  if 
they  are  instructed  by  their  clients 
to  say  it;  and  to  hold  them  respon- 
sible for  everything  that  is  imperti- 
nent to  tlie  case,  whether  they  are 
instructed  or  not."  Stackpole  v.  Hen- 
nen,  6  Mart.  N.  ;S.  (La.)  481,  17  Am. 
Dec.  187,  wherein  the  court  said:  "In 
France  the  same  limits  are  assigned, 
with  this  sole  difference,  that  there, 
by  positive  legislation  of  a  very  re- 
cent date,  the  instructions  must  be 
in  writing.  Martin's  Rep.  de  Jures, 
vol.  1,  p.  464.  ...  In  Rome, 
wliile  a  generous  freedom  was  incul- 
cated on  counsel  in  advocating  the 
causes  of  their  clients,  the  prohibi- 
tion was  express  against  profiting  by 
this  liberty  to  speak  untruths  and 
utter  slander.  Spain,  in  her  written 
laws,  has  repeated  nearly  verbatim 
the  restraints  imposed  by  the  imperial 
code." 


120  PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES.  [§    75 

liability  for  defamatory  words  wholly  and  entirely  outside  of,  and 
having  no  connection  with,  the  matter  of  inquiry.  For  why  should 
a  person  be  absolutely  privileged  to  defame  another  in  the  course 
of  a  judicial  proceeding  by  making  slanderous  statements  wholly 
outside  of  the  inquiry  before  the  court?  We  think  it  unnecessary 
to  carry  the  doctrine  so  far.  The  ends  of  justice  can  be  effectually 
accomplished  by  placing  a  limit  upon  the  part  of  counsel  who 
avails  himself  of  his  situation  to  gratify  private  malice  by  uttering 
slanderous  expressions  and  making  libelous  statements,  which  have 
no  relation  to,  or  connection  with,  the  cause  in  hand  or  the  sub- 
ject-matter of  inquiry.  The  person  whose  good  name  suffers  has, 
or  ought  to  have,  the  right  to  vindicate  his  reputation  by  an  appeal 
to  the  courts,  instead  of  taking  the  law  into  his  own  hands.  The 
law  would  be  a  vain  thing  indeed  to  shut  the  gates  of  justice  in  his 
face,  and  at  the  same  time  fetter  his  hands  by  the  command,  'Thou 
shalt  not  kill.'  The  person  accused  may  have  suffered  great  finan- 
cial loss  by  the  slander  published  under  the  protection  of  the  law, 
and  the  only  compensation  or  consolation  he  w^ould  have  would  be 
the  indulgence  in  the  reflection  that  the  court  had  enriched  the 
public  treasury  with  a  fine  collected  from  his  defamer.''  ^  Tn 
determining  what  is  pertinent,  however,  much  latitude  must  be 
allowed  to  the  judgment  and  discretion  of  those  who  maintain  a 
cause  in  court.  Much  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  earnest 
though  mistaken  zeal  of  a  litigant  who  seeks  to  redress  his  wrongs, 
and  for  the  ardent  and  excited  feelings  of  the  fearless,  conscientious 
lawyer,  who  must  necessarily  make  his  client's  cause  his  own.^** 
In  applying  this  principle  the  courts  are  liberal,  even  to  the  ex- 
tent of  declaring  that  where  matter  is  put  forth  by  counsel  in  the 
course  of  a  judicial  proceeding  that  may  possibly  be  pertinent, 
they  will  not  deprive  its  author  of  his  privilege,  because  the  due 
administration  of  justice  re(]uires  that  the  rights  of  clients  should 
not  be  im|ici'il(Ml  l)y  subjecting  their  legal  advisers  to  the  constant 
fear  of  suits  for  libel  or  slan(h^r.^^  The  privilege  is  extended  to 
the  counsel  for  the  interest  and  benefit  of  the  party,  and  to  allow 
liiiii  full  scoj)e  ;iii(l  IVeedoiii  in  llie  legit  imate  support  or  defense  of 

9  Myers  r.   Ilod^ros,   '>.•}   Kin.    I!t7.  44       So.     .'if)? :      Iloiu-     /■.     Wood.     ,3     Met. 
So.  :?.-)7.  CNfass.)    197. 

10  .Myers  r.  TTodj^'cs.  .'jr?  Fla.  107.  44  H  Voiimaiis  r.  Smitli.  15.3  N.  Y.  214^ 


§    76]  PKIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES.  121 

the  rights  of  the  party.^^  Where  the  words  are  uttered  in  the 
course  of  a  trial,  it  is  immaterial  whether  they  are  addressed  to  a 
witness,  or  to  the  court  or  jnry.^^  The  rule  has  been  applied  not 
only  to  regular  attorneys  engaged  in  the  trial  of  a  cause,  but  to 
one  conducting  his  own  defense  before  a  magistrate,^*  and  to  a  mas- 
ter acting  as  counsel  in  behalf  of  his  slave  on  trial  before  a  compe- 
tent tribunal. ^^  And  it  has  been  said  that  when,  in  the  absence  of 
the  public  prosecutor,  a  complainant  is  acting  as  party  or  counsel 
in  the  management  of  a  criminal  prosecution  before  a  magistrate, 
either  as  a  matter  of  right  or  by  permission  of  the  magistrate,  he 
is  entitled  to  the  same  privileges  as  a  party  or  counsel  in  other  ju- 
dicial proceedings.^^  The  rule  has  also  been  invoked  in  regard  to 
statements  in  various  written  pleadings  and  the  like,  such  as  a  dec- 
laration in  a  justice's  court, ^'  statements  in  an  answer  to  a  bill  of 
complaint  in  chancery,^®  objections  to  a  discharge  in  bankruptcy, ■^^ 
specifications  of  opposition  to  an  insolvent's  discharge,*^"  an  infor- 
mation upon  which  to  base  a  search  warrant,^  and  law  briefs  of 
counsel.^ 

§  76.  Rule  Where  Language  Is  Not  Pertinent. —  The  gen- 
eral rule  is  that  defamatory  words,  published  in  the  due  course  of 

47   N.   E.  265;    Hastings   v.   Lusk.   22  14  McDavitt   v.  Boyer,   169  111.  475, 

Wend.   (N.  Y.)   410.  34  Am.  Dec.  330.  48   N.   E.  317;   Morgan   v.  Booth,   13 

In   Youmans   v.   Smith,    ]53   N.   Y.  Bush    (Ky.)    481:    Hastings   r.  Lusk, 

214,  47  N.  E.  265,   it  was  held  that  22  Wend.    (X.  Y.)    410,  34  Am.  Dec. 

where  an   attorney  in   a   pending   ju-  330. 

dicial    proceeding    had    printed,    and  15  Shelfer  r.  Gooding,  47  N.  C.  175. 

submitted  to  persons  expected  to  be  16  Hoar   r.   Wood,   3   Met.    (Mass.) 

called   as    witnesses,    questions    to   be  ]n3. 

asked  them,  which,  although  libelous,  17  Gilbert  v.  People,  1  Den.  (N.  Y.) 

were    not    so    manifestly    immaterial  41,  43  Am.  Dec.  646. 

tliat    under    no    circumstances    could  18  Hartung  r.  Shaw,  130  Mich.  177, 

tliey    be    asked    upon    the    trial,    the  89  X.  W.  701. 

drafting    and    printing    thereof    was  19  Marsh    r.    Ellswortli.    50    X.    Y. 

privileged    and    protected    the    attor-  309. 

ney   against   a    prosecution    for    libel.  20  Hollis   v.   Meux,   69    Cal.  625,   11 

12Hoar    r.    Wood.    3    Met.    (Mass.)  Pac.   248,   58   Am.   Rep.  574. 

193;  Jennings  r.  Paine.  4  Wis.  358.  1  Vausse   r.  Lee.   1   Hill   L.    (S.  C.) 

13  Hoar    r.    Wood,    3    Met.    (Mass.)  197.  26  Am.  Dec.  168. 

193.  2  Stewart  v.  Hall,  83  Ky.  375. 


122 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMl'TIOA'S,    DISABILITIES. 


[§ 


a  judicial  proceeding,  and  which  are  not  relevant  or  pertinent  to 
the  subject  of  inquiry,  are  conditionally  or  qualifiedly  privileg^nl ; 
that  is,  prima  facie  privileged.  Language  so  used  is  not  action- 
able unless  malice  is  shown. ^  But  where  an  attorney,  or  counsel, 
in  such  a  proceeding,  goes  out  of  the  way  to  asperse  and  vilify 
another  by  words  or  writing  not  material  or  pertinent  to  the  cou- 
troversy,  he  is  without  protection,  and  is  liable  to  be  prosecuted 
as  in  other  cases  of  slander  or  libel.'*  Counsel  cannot  avail  him- 
self of  his  situation  to  gratify  private  malice  by  uttering  slander- 
ous expressions,  which  have  no  relation  to  the  cause  or  subject-nuit- 
ter  of  the  inquiry,  either  against  a  party,  a  witness,  or  a  third 
person.^  Xor  does  it  follow,  because  an  attorney  will  be  exempt 
from  liability  for  words  spoken  in  open  court  in  the  conduct  of  his 
case,  that  he  would  be  likewise  exempt  when  repeating  the  words 
on  another  occasion  when  he  was  under  no  obligation  either  to  the 
public  or  his  client  to  speak  in  reference  to  the  matter.  While  no 
malice  would  be  implied,  either  from  the  character  of  the  words  or 
the  falsity  of  the  charge,  when  they  were  uttered  in  the  course  of  a 
judicial  proceeding,  the  repetition  of  the  M'ords,  either  in  private 
conversation  or  in  a  published  article  in  a  newspaper  at  his  in- 
stance, wdien  no  public  or  private  duty  required  him  to  repeat 
them,  would  place  him,  as  to  such  repetition,  upon  the  same  foot- 
ing as  any  one  who  speaks  of  another ;  he  speaks  then  at  his  peril. ^ 


SLawson  v.  Hicks,  .38  Ala.  279,  SI 
Am.  Dec.  49 ;  Myers  v.  Hodijes,  ,53 
Fla.  197,  44  So.  .357:  Dada  r.  Piper. 
41  Hun  25G,  2  X.  Y.  St.  Rop.  ITrl. 

In  cases  of  conditionally  privili'frc<l 
publications,  tlie  presumption,  wliioli 
attends  cases  not  so  privileged,  of 
malice  from  tlie  publication  of  libel- 
ous lanjiuape  does  not  prevail;  the 
biird<ii  of  proof  is  cbanp^ed,  and  in 
ordiT  fnr  llic  plaiiitill'  to  i-ccoNcr  he 
is  called  upon  aflirmatively  and  fx- 
pressly  to  show  malice  \n  the  f)ub- 
lislicr.  'Iliis  malice  may  be  inferred 
from  the  language  of  the  puljlication 
itsr'lf,  or  may  lie  prnvcii  by  cxtiinsic 
circumstances;  but  malici'  i>  not  in- 
fcraljle    from    th<'    meic    fact    that    the 


statements  are  untrue,  or  that  the  de- 
fendant used  strong  words,  or  that 
the  expressions  are  angry  and  intem- 
perate. Myers  r.  Hodges,  53  Fla.  197, 
44  So.  .357. 

4  Gilbert  r.  People,  1  Den.  (N.  Y.) 
41,  43  Am.  Dec.  640.  And  see  Les- 
ter r.  Thurmond,  51  C,a.  118;  Morri- 
son r.  Snow,  20  Utah  247,  72  Pac. 
924. 

SHollis  r.  Meux,  69  Cal.  028,  11 
Pac.  248,  .58  Am.  Rep.  574;  Hoar  r. 
Wood.  3  Met.  (Mass.)  198;  Hartung 
r.  Siiaw,  1.30  Mich.  177,  89  N.  W. 
Till  ;  (  om.  r.  Culver,  1  Pa.  L.  .7.  Rep. 
31)3,  2  Pa.  L.  .1.  3()1. 

ei.cstcr  /•.  'riiurmond.  51  (la.  118; 
Atliuita    News    Pub.    Co.    r.    .Medlock, 


§§    77,  78]       PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


123 


§  77.  Communications  between  Attorney  and   Client.  — 

Commimicatious  between  an  attorney  and  his  elient  are  qualitied- 
ly  privileged,  so  that  no  malice  can  be  inferred  therefrom.'  The 
same  privilege  exists  as  to  communications  between  an  attorney 
and  a  prospective  client,  preliminary  to  the  retainer,  where  the 
attorney  reasonably  believes  that  his  services  may  be  required.* 
If  a  retainer  is  genuine,  the  fact  that  the  attorney  is  not  well  dis- 
posed toward  the  person  defamed  is  not  proof  of  malice  sufficient 
to  remove  the  privilege.^  But  where  a  communication  between 
attorney  and  client  is  made,  not  in  good  faith,  but  maliciously,  the 
slanderer  or  libeler  is  not  protected  from  liability.^"  Thus  counsel 
cannot,  under  the  pretext  of  giving  advice  to  a  client,  openly  slan- 
der a  third  person.^^  The  general  subject  of  privileged  communi- 
cations is  treated  later. ^^ 

§  78.  Rule  in  England  and  in  Canada.  —  In  England  the 
rule  appears  to  be  that  no  action  will  lie  against  counsel  for  slan- 
derous works  spoken  with  reference  to,  and  in  the  course  of,  an 
inquiry  before  a  judicial  tribunal,  although  they  are  uttered  ma- 
liciously and  without  any  justification  or  even  excuse,  and  from 
personal  ill  will  towards  the  person  slandered,  arising  out  of  a  pre- 
viously existing  cause,  and  are  irrelevant  to  every  issue  of  fact  con- 
tested before  the  court.^^     But  the  subsequent  publication  of  such 


]23   Ga.  720,   51   S.  E.  756,  3  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)    1139. 

7  Wright  r.  Woodgate,  2  C.  M.  & 
R.  (Eng.)  573,  Tyrw.  &  G.  12,  1  Gale 
329:  Lapetina  v.  Santangelo,  124 
App.  Div.  519,  10»  N.  Y.  S.  975.  See 
also  O'Donaghue  v.  McGovern,  23 
Wend.   (N.  Y.)   26. 

8  Browne  v.  Dunn,  6  Rep.  (Eng.) 
67. 

9  Browne  v.  Dunn,  6  Rep.  (Eng.) 
67. 

10  Lapetina  v.  Santangelo.  124  App. 
Div.  519,  108  N.  Y.  S.  975. 

11  Where  an  attorney  gives  advice 
in  a  public  or  semipublic  place,  in  a 
loud  voice,  and  in  hearing  of  divers 
persons,   and  it  is   addressed,   not   to 


the  client,  but  to  a  third  person,  the 
alleged  communication  is  slanderous. 
Kruse  r.  Rabe,  80  N.  J.  L.  378,  Ann. 
Cas.  1912  A  477,  79  Atl.  316,  33 
L.R.A. (N.S.)   469. 

12  See  infra,  §  92  et  seq. 

l3Munster  v.  Lamb,  11  Q.  B.  D. 
(Eng.)  588.  See  also  Pedley  v.  Mor- 
ris, 61  L.  J.  Q.  B.  (Eng.)  21,  65  L. 
T.  N.  S.  526 :  Brook  v.  Montague,  Cro. 
Jac.  (Eng.)  90;  Wood  v.  Gunston. 
Style  (Eng.)  462;  Hodgson  r.  Scar- 
lett, 1  B.  &  Aid.  (Eng.)  232;  Mackay 
V.  Ford,  5  H.  &  X.  (Eng.)  792.  And 
see  Myers  v.  Hodges,  53  Fla.  197,  44 
So.  357,  and  Rice  v.  Coolidge,  121 
Mass.  393.  23  Am.  Rep.  279,  wherein 
the  English  rule  is  discussed. 


124  PRIVILEGES,    EXEMrTIO>;S,    DISABILITIES.        [§§     7U,  80 

slanderous  matter  is  not  ju>;tifiab]e  unless  it  is  published  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  the  public  information  which  it  is  fit  and  proper 
for  them  to  receive.^*  In  Canada  it  has  been  held  that  an  advocate 
is  not  liable  in  damages  for  defamatorv  statements  made  concern- 
ing a  witness  under  examination  where  the  statements  are  made 
without  malice  and  under  the  instructions  of  his  client/^ 

DisahiUties. 

§  79.  Generally. — In  addition  to  those  matters  which  are 
considered  in  the  following  sections  under  this  subdivision,  it  is 
usual  to  consider,  as  disabilities,  certain  matters  which  the  attor- 
ney may  not  do  in  dealing  with  his  client.  Under  the  plan  of  this 
work,  however,  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  treat  those  subjects  else- 
where— thus  as  to  the  attorney's  duty  to  refrain  from  representing 
conflicting  interests. ^^  or  becoming  interested  in  the  subject  mat- 
ter of  the  litigation  in  which  his  client  is  involved. ■^''^  So  an  attor- 
ney is,  in  most  jurisdictions,  under  a  disability  to  purchase  claims 
for  litigation, ^^  and  in  no  jurisdiction  may  he  reveal  the  confiden- 
tial communications  made  to  him  by  his  client. ^^  Matters  of  this 
character,  while  they  may  properly  be  classified  as  disabilities,  are 
either  so  large,  or  so  inseparably  connected  with  kindred  topics, 
as  to  require  consideration  in  other  portions  of  the  work. 

§  80.  Attorney  Becoming  Surety.  —  In  the  absence  of  any 
statute  or  rule  to  the  contrary,  an  attoruv^y  may  qualify  as  surety 
either  for  his  client  or  for  any  other  person.^"     In  most  jurisdic- 

14  Flint  r.  Pike,  4  P..  &  C.  173,  10  Pabin,    124    La.    1005.    IS    Ann.    Cas. 

E.  C.  L.  380.  837.  50  So.  825;  Muri-ay  v.  Moynalian, 

iBGauthier  v.  St.  Piorro,  28  L.  C.  27  Wasli.  379,  07  Pac.  810. 
•Tur.   16.  A   statute   making   it  iinlawful   for 

16  See  infra,  §§  174-182.  any  judicial   or   ministerial   officer  of 

17  See  tn/ra,  §§  164-173.  any  of  the  courts  of  the  state  to  go 

18  Sec  infra,  §  395.  bail  for  any  prisoner,  etc..  refers  ex- 

19  See  infra,  §  92  et  seq.  ehisively    to   such    officers   as    judges, 

20  Husband  v.  Georgia  Southern,  clerks,  sheriffs,  and  their  deputies, 
dr.,  i;.  Co.,  3  (la.  App.  157,  59  S.  E.  etc.,  as  directly  constitute  the  ma- 
32();  Abbott  '".  Zeigler,  9  Ind.  511;  cliinery  of  the  court,  and  does  not 
Wright  V.  Schmidt,  47  la.  233;  Daly  prohibit  an  attorney  from  becoming 
V.   JhiiYy,   20    I.a.    .\nri.   408;    State   V.  a    surety    on    his    client's    bail    bond. 


bO] 


riilVlLEGES,    EXKiMPTlOAS,    DISABILITIES. 


12i 


tions,  however,  it  has  been  declared  by  statute  that  attorneys  may 
not  become  sureties/  especially  in  causes  wherein  they  are  inter- 
ested as  counsel.^  The  regulation  of  matters  of  this  kind  is  un- 
doubtedly within  the  power  of  the  legislature,^  and  in  the  absence 


though  an  attorney  is  an  officer  of  the 
courts  generally.  State  v.  Babin,  124 
La.  1005,  18  Ann.  Cas.  837,  50  So. 
825. 

1  Massie  v.  Mann,  17  la.  131;  Cup- 
py  V.  Coflnian,  82  la.  214,  47  N.  W. 
1005;  Johnson  f.  Com.,  2  Duv.  (Ky.) 
410;  Tovvle  v.  Bradley,  2  S.  D.  472, 
50  N.  W.  1057 ;  Dennett  V.  Reisdorfer, 
15  S.  D.  466,  90  N.  W.  138;  Branger 
V.  Buttrick,  30  Wis.  153;  Gilbank  r. 
Stephenson,  30  Wis.   155. 

That  a  statute  prohibiting  a  prac- 
ticing attorney  from  becoming  a  sure- 
ty in  any  suit  or  proceeding  is  not 
limited  to  attorneys  connected  with 
the  suit  in  which  the  obligation  is 
given,  but  extends  to  all  attorneys 
wiietlier  interested  or  not,  see  Towle 
r.  Bradley,  2  S.  D.  472,  50  N.  W. 
1057,  followed  in  Dennett  v.  Reis- 
dorfer, 15  S.  D.  466,  90  N.  W.  138. 

2  McWhirter  v.  Donaldson,  36  Utah 
293,  104  Pac.  731. 

In  Tessier  r.  Crowley,  17  Neb.  207, 
22  N.  W.  422,  it  was  said:  "The  law 
prohibiting  such  signing  is  based  upon 
considerations  of  sound  public  policy. 
An  attorney  should  never  allow  him- 
self to  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of 
encouraging  litigation.  Nor  should 
he  allow  himself  to  become  personally 
interested  in  the  cause  of  his  client 
by  assuming  any  personal  liability. 
When  he  does  become  thus  interested 
a  strong  inducement  is  offered  to  seek 
and  take  unjust  and  unfair  advan- 
tage of  the  opposite  side  without  ref- 
erence to  the  justice  of  his  cause. 
The  law  is  also  for  his  protection. 
When  interested  in  behalf  of  a  client 


whose  cause  he  believes  to  be  just,  he 
is  liable,  unless  restrained  by  a  due 
and  proper  respect  for  the  law,  to 
assume  liabilities  which  may  become 
very  embarrassing  to  him.  The  law 
very  properly  admonishes  him  to 
avoid  such  liabilities." 

Statutes  Strictly  Construed. — In 
Lewis  V.  Higgins,  52  Md.  614,  the 
court  held  that  a  rule  of  court  pro- 
viding that  an  attorney  shall  not  be- 
come security  for  costs  or  surety  on 
an  appeal  bond  has  no  application  to 
attachment  bonds.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear in  that  case  whether  the  rela- 
tionship of  attorney  and  client  exist- 
ed between  the  parties. 

In  Tennessee,  in  Halfacre  v.  State, 
112  Tenn.  609,  79  S.  W.  132,  it  was 
held  that  a  statute  providing  that  an 
attorney  should  not  sign  any  bona  or 
enter  into  any  recognizance  as  sure- 
ty for  the  appearance  of  any  defend- 
ant or  defendants  in  any  criminal 
case  pending  against  such  defendants 
did  not  apply  where  a  fine  was 
assessed  and  an  attorney  was  offered 
as  surety  for  the  fine.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear from  the  decision  whether  or  not 
the  attorney  offered  as  surety  was  the 
attorney  for  the  defendant. 

In  Cunningham  r.  Tucker,  14  Fla. 
251,  it  was  held  that  a  rule  of  court 
prohibiting  attorneys  from  signing  as 
sureties  for  their  clients  did  not  pro- 
hibit an  attorney  from  signing  an  in- 
junction bond  as  principal  or  in  be- 
half of  the  parties,  and  that  the  rule 
should  receive  a  strict  construction. 

3  Ohio,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.    Hardy,    64 


126 


TKIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIO^"S,    DISABILITIES. 


[§  80 


of  legislative  regulation  may  be  governed  by  rule  of  court ;  *  al- 
though in  Louisiana  it  has  been  held  that  an  attorney  may  go 
surety  for  his  client  in  either  a  civil  or  a  criminal  case,  notwith- 


Ind.  454 ;  Johnson  v.  Com.,  2  Duv. 
(Ky.)   410. 

4  Morrill  v.  Lamson.  138  Mass.  115; 
State  V.  Von  Martels,  10  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)  819,  11  Cine.  L.  Bui.  154; 
Gardy  v.  Moffit,  14  W.  X.  C.  (Pa.) 
438. 

Xeic  York. — Rule  V.  of  the  general 
rules  of  practice  provides:  "In  no 
case  shall  an  attorney  or  counselor 
be  surety  on  any  undertaking  or  bond 
required  by  law,  or  by  these  rules, 
or  by  any  order  of  a  court  or  judge, 
in  any  action  or  proceeding,  or  be 
bail  in  any  civil  or  criminal  case  or 
proceeding." 

It  has  been  held  that  tlie  attor- 
ney for  a  nonresident  plaintiff  may 
become  security  for  costs.  Walker  v. 
Holmes,  22  Wend.  614.  And  it  has 
been  held  that  a  solicitor  in  chan- 
cery may  become  surety  for  his  client 
for  costs  in  the  proceeding.  Mickle- 
thwaite  v.  Rhodes,  4  Sandf.  Ch.  434. 
So  he  may  be  a  surety  on  an  appeal 
bond.  Studwcll  V.  Palmer,  5  Paige 
57. 

In  Rycknum  r.  Colenuin.  13  Abb. 
Pr.  398,  the  court  lu'ld  tliat  the  prac- 
tice of  prohil)iting  attorneys  from  be- 
coming security  for  tlicir  clients  ex- 
tended only  to  bail  for  the  appear- 
ance of  parties  arrested,  and  that  an 
attorney  migjit  become  security  f(ir 
his  client  on  an  undertaking  for  tlie 
continuaiici'  of  an   injunction. 

However,  otlier  decisions  in  tliis  jn- 
rJHdiction  seetn  to  deny  tlic  right  of 
an  attorney  to  Ix'come  a  surety  for 
bis  client.  TbuH.  in  Coster  r.  Watson, 
15    .lolins.    r,:i'>,    tlic    court    IjiM    (Ijat 


special  bail  signed  by  an  attorney 
might  be  refused  by  the  court.  And 
see  Evans  V.  Harris,  47  Super.  Ct. 
3GG,  from  the  decision  in  which  case 
it  seems  that  an  attorney'  would  not 
be  competent  to  become  surety  for  his 
client  in  the  face  of  a  prohibitory 
rule  of  court.  And  in  Miles  v.  Clarke, 
4  Bosw,  632,  affirming  2  Bosw.  709, 
the  court  held  that  a  practicing  at- 
torney is  disqualified  to  become  bail 
in  a  civil  action  if  an  exception  is 
taken  to  his  reception  as  such.  Bvit 
see  Scott  v.  Craig,  1  Wend.  35,  where- 
in it  is  held  that  it  an  attorney  signs 
as  bail  and  is  accepted,  he  cannot 
escape  the  obligation  he  has  entered 
into,  nor  can  his  acceptance  be  made 
the  subject  of  an  objection  on  a  mo- 
tion to  quash  a  writ  of  error.  And 
in  Lawler  v.  Van  Aernam,  22  Alb.  L. 
J.  156,  it  was  held  that  a  rule  of 
court  prohibiting  attorneys  from  be- 
coming surety  on  any  bond  or  under- 
taking did  not  apply  to  justices' 
courts,  and  that  an  appeal  bond  on 
an  appeal  from  a  justice's  court, 
though  signed  by  an  attorney,  was 
regular  and  valid. 

7/i  Canada  it  is  held  to  be  for  tlie 
advantage  of  an  attorney  to  prohibit 
liim  from  becoming  security  for  costs 
for  his  client.  Beckitt  r.  Wragg,  1 
Ch.  Chamb.  (Out.)  5;  Re  Gibson,  13 
Ont.  Pr.  359.  In  Lemelin  r.  Larue, 
10  L.  C.  Rep.  190,  where  an  attor- 
ney ])ut  in  a  bond  foi-  liis  client  to 
j)rocure  an  appeal  in  viohition  of  a 
rule  of  court,  the  court  declared  tiie 
proceeding  to  be  irregular,  hut  al- 
lowed further  time  to  put  in  a  jiropcr 
btind. 


§    SO]  TEIVILEGES,    EXE]\rPTIOXS,    DISABILITIES. 


127 


staiuliiii;'  a  rule  of  court  to  the  contrary.^  The  purpose  of  these 
prohibitory  measures  is  to  protect  attorneys  from  the  unreasonable 
importunities  of  clients,  who,  not  satisfied  with  the  faithful  dis- 
charge of  professional  duty,  insist  that  their  attorneys  shall  become 
sureties  for  the  result  of  litigation.  To  yield  to  their  importuni- 
ties is  to  assume  pecuniary  risks  and  losses  which  it  is  no  i)art  of 
the  professional  duty  of  an  attorney  to  assume,  and  which  h(; 
therefore  ought  not  to  assume.  They  are  risks  and  losses  the  as- 
sumption of  which  tends  to  make  an  attorney  a  quasi  princi])al  in 
litigation,  rather  than  an  officer  of  the  court  whose  duty  it  is  to 
act  as  a  minister  of  justice.®  In  some  instances  the  prohibition 
as  to  becoming  surety  is  expressly  confined  to  practicing  attor- 
neys,' and,  of  course,  would  not  apply  to  one  who  has  ceased  to 


In  England  it  seems  to  be  against 
tlie  settled  policy  of  the  law,  and  the 
rules  of  the  respective  courts,  to  al- 
low an  attorney  to  become  surety  for 
liis  client.  See  Bell  v.  Gate,  1  Taunt. 
162;  Richie  v.  Gilbert,  1  Taunt.  1G4, 
note  a;  George  r.  Barnsley,  1  Chit.  8, 
18  E.  C.  L.  13.  But  it  has  been  held 
that  if  an  attorney  signs  a  bond  or 
recognizance  for  his  client  in  viola- 
tion of  the  rule  of  court,  the  obliga- 
tion is  not  void,  and  he  may  be  pro- 
ceeded against  thereon.  Harper  v. 
Tahourdin,  6  M.  &  S.  383.  See  also 
Re.x  v.  Sheriff,  1  Chit.  714  note.  18  E. 
C.   L.   213   note. 

6  Daly  r.  Duffy,  26  La.  Ann.  468; 
State  V.  Babin,  124  La.  1005,  18  Ann. 
(as.  837,  50  So.  825. 

eSchuek  v.  Hagar,  24  Minn.  339; 
McWhirter  r.  Donallson,  36  Utah 
293,  104  Pac.  731. 

It  is  an  attorney's  duty  to  devote 
Ills  ability,  skill,  and  diligence  along 
ethical  and  professional  lines  to  the 
interests  of  his  client,  and  to  refrain 
from  entering  into  any  alliance  or  in- 
curring any  obligation  connected  witli 
the  litigation  in  which  he  is  engaged 


as  counsel  that  would  place  liim  in 
a  position  where  his  personal  inter- 
ests would  be  adverse  to  those  of  bis 
client.  While  attorneys  as  a  rule 
faithfully  observe  and  fearlessh'  dis- 
charge these  duties  and  obligations, 
regardless  of  the  effect  that  their 
actions  in  these  respects  may  have  on 
tlieir  own  personal  interests,  yet  ex- 
perience has  demonstrated  that  there 
are  exceptions  to  the  general  rule, 
and  that  there  are  members  of  the 
legal  profession  who,  when  their  own 
personal  interests  are  involved  in  an 
action  or  proceeding  in  which  they 
are  acting  as  counsel,  are  apt  to,  and 
sometimes  do,  disregard  these  gen- 
eral duties  which  the  law  imposes 
upon  them.  Therefore,  in  order  to 
prevent  attorneys  from  having  an  un- 
due interest  in  litigation  in  wliieh 
they  are  employed  as  counsel,  they 
are  prohibited  in  this  and  many  otlier 
jurisdictions,  either  by  statute  or 
rule  of  court,  from  becoming  surety 
for  their  clients."'  Mc^Yhirter  r.  Don- 
aldson. 36  Utah  293.  104  Pac.  731. 
7  Hudson  r.  Smith,  111  la.  411,  82 


128 


PKIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


[§  81 


be  sucb.^  Under  some  statutes  an  attorney  bas  been  beld  to  be 
incompetent  as  a  surety  on  an  appeal  from  the  judgment  of  a  jus- 
tice of  the  peace,  or  otber  such  minor  court ;  ^  but  a  rule  of  the 
court  to  which  an  appeal  from  such  inferior  court  lies,  prohibit- 
ing attorneys  from  becoming  sureties,  would  not  apply  to  the 
proceedings  in  the  inferior  court;  ^°  although  it  would  seem  that 
on  the  filing  of  the  appeal  the  appellate  court  might  then  com- 
pel the  giving  of  security  in  conformity  with  its  rules. ^^ 

§  81.  Validity  and  Effect  of  Bond  Given  by  Attorney  in 
Violation  of  Statute  or  Rule  of  Court.  —  The  general  rule  is 
that  a  bond  signed  by  an  attorney,  for  his  client,  or  for  any  other 
person,  is  none  the  less  binding  because  of  the  existence  of  a  stat- 
ute, or  rule  of  court,  which  declares  that  an  attorney  is  not  a  prop- 
er surety  on  such  a  bond.  Having  entered  into  the  obligation,  the 
attorney  will  be  bound  thereby,^^  although  he  may  be  subject  to 


X.  W.  943:   Cothren  r.  Connaiighton. 
24  Wis.   134. 

8  Evans  r.  Harris,  47  Super.  Ct.  (X. 
Y.)    306. 

9  Valley  Xat.  Bank  r.  Garretson, 
104  la.  6.^.5,  74  X.  W.  11;  Hudson  v. 
Smitli.  in  la.  411,  82  X.  W.  943. 
Compare  Stark  v.  Small,  72  Wis. 
215,  39  X.  W.  359,  wherein  it  was 
lield  tliat  the  menioraTiduni  on  a  jus- 
tice's docket  required  to  be  signed  by 
sureties  for  costs  is  not  an  ""under- 
taking,  bond,  or  recognizance,"  witli- 
in  the  meaning  of  a  statute  providing 
that  no  attornej^  shall  be  taken  as 
biiil  or  security  on  such  instruments 
in  any  action  or  proceeding. 

10  I.awler  r.  Van  Aermin.  22  Alb. 
L.  .].  (X.  V.)  15fl;  Gardy  r.  Momt. 
14    W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)    438. 

n  S(K!  I)e  Jarnatt  r.  Martpiez.  127 
Gal.  :ui9,.  (•)()  I'ac.  45.  78  Am.  St.  \\v\^. 
90. 

12  l,/.y;„.s,/.v.  Stall'  /■.  .loiics.  29 
Ark.   127. 

(Iraryin. —  lliisliand   ''.  (irorgia.  etc., 


E.  Co.,  3  Ga.  App.  157,  59  S.  E.  320. 
See  also  Burton  v.  Wynne,  55  Ga.  015. 

Illinois. — Jack  r.  People,  19  111.  57 

Indiana. — Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Hardy,   64   Ind.   454. 

Iowa. — Massie  v.  Mann,  17  Ta.  131. 

Kansas. — Sherman  r.  State,  4  Kan. 
570;    Potter   v.  Payne,   31   Kan.   218, 

I  Pac.  017. 

Kentucky. — Holandsworth    v.   Com.. 

II  Bush  017. 

Massachusetts. — Morrill  r.  Lamson, 
138  Mass.  115;  Johnson  /•.  Sprague, 
183  Mass.  102,  66  N.  E.  422. 

Missouri. — Hicks  r.  Chouteau,  12 
Mo.  341. 

\ehrasl,a. — Tessier  v.  Crowley.  17 
Xeb.  207,  22  X.  W.  422;  Luce  r. 
Foster.  42  Xeb.  818,  60  X.  W.  1027: 
Chase  r.  Omaha  L.  &  T.  Co.,  50  Xeb. 
358,  76   X.   W.   890. 

Ohio.  —  Gialuuuc  r.  Douglas, 
Wright  73S;  Wallace  r.  Scolcs.  0 
Ohio  428;  Hays  r.  Rush.  S  Ohio  l)e;'. 
(  KcpriTit  )    .")(),   5   Cine.    1..    Hul.   32S. 

I'cnnsi/lrania. — Wise      v.      Pennsvl- 


§  81] 


PKIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIOJN'S,    DISABILITIES. 


129 


punishment  as  for  contempt  of  court. ^^  An  attorney  who  becomes 
surety  under  such  circumstances  is  estopped  to  deny  the  validity 
of  his  act.'^*  But  it  has  been  held  that  a  statute  providing  that  ''no 
practicing  attorney  or  counselor  shall  be  a  surety  in  any  suit  or 
proceeding  which  may  be  instituted  in  any  of  the  courts  of  this 
territory,"  deprives  an  attorney  of  the  legal  power  or  ability  to  be- 
come a  surety  in  an  undertaking  in  any  suit  or  proceeding,  wheth- 
er he  be  attorney  therein  or  not,  and  no  waiver  of  objection  to  an 
attorney  as  surety,  either  by  himself  or  a  party  to  the  action  in 
which    he    executes    an    undertaking,     can    make    him     compe- 


vania    Hard-Vein    Slate    Co.,    3    Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  564. 

Texas. — Kolm  v.  Washer,  69  Tex. 
67,  6  S.  W.  551 ;  Rogers  V.  Burbridge, 
f)  Tex.  Civ.  App.  67,  24  S.  W.  300; 
Prusiecki  r.  Ramziiiski,  81  S.  W.  ,'49. 

13  Love  r.  Slitn'elin,  7  Fla.  40;  Ohio, 
etc.  R.  Co.  r.  Hardy,  64  Ind.  454; 
Wallace  v.  Scoles,  6  Ohio  428. 

14  Jack  V.  People.  19  111.  57;  Sher- 
man V.  State,  4  Kan.  493 ;  Holands- 
worth  V.  Com.  11  Bush  (Ky.)  617; 
Tessier  v.  Crowley,  17  Neb.  207,  22 
N.  W.  422;  Luce  v.  Foster,  42  Nob. 
818,  60  N.  W.  1027;  Chase  v.  Omaha 
L.  &  T.  Co.,  56  Neb.  358,  76  N.  W. 
896. 

In  Wright  v.  Schmidt.  47  la.  233, 
the  court,  in  holding  that  the  act  of 
an  attorney  in  signing  a  special  ad- 
ministrator's bond  for  his  client  in 
violation  of  a  statute  prohibiting  at- 
torneys from  becoming  sureties  on 
bonds  did  not  render  the  obligation 
void,  said:  "But  we  cannot  believe 
that  an  attorney  who  has  secured 
for  his  principal,  and,  it  may  be,  his 
client,  all  the  benefits  of  a  good  and 
legal  bond,  can  be  permitted  to  shield 
himself  behind  the  provisions  of  this 
section  and  thereby  escape  liability. 
Appellant  cites  no  precedent  for  such 
a  holding,   and   we   are   umvilling   to 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol,  1.— 9 


make  one  to  authorize  a  party  to  so 
effectually  take  advantage  of  his  own 
wrong.  Appellant  had  no  right  to  in- 
sist that  the  officer  should  accept  him 
as  a  security;  but  having  tendered 
himself  as  such  and  been  accepted, 
thus  depriving  the  interested  parties 
of  otlier  security,  he  must  perform  the 
conditions  of  the  contract  into  which 
he  has  voluntarily  entered.  Neither 
the  interests  of  good  morals  would  be 
promoted,  nor  respect  for  the  law 
would  be  increased,  by  permitting  him 
to  escape." 

In  Holandsworth  v.  Com.,  11  Bush 
(Ky.)  617,  it  does  not  clearly  appear 
whether  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  existed  between  the  parties;  but 
the  court,  in  holding  that  an  obliga- 
tion is  not  void  if  an  attorney  is  ac- 
cepted as  bail  contrary  to  a  statute 
prohibiting  him  from  becoming  bail, 
said:  "If  those  of  the  exempted  or 
privileged  classes  persist  in  tendering 
themselves  as  bail,  and,  by  becoming 
such,  procure  the  discharge  of  persons 
accused  of  crime,  they  will  not  be 
heard  to  say  that  they  are  not  bound 
because  they  violated  the  law.  The 
best  way  to  enforce  obedience  to  the 
law  is  to  punish  its  infraction;  and  if 
officials  will  break  the  barrier  the  law 
has  erected  for  their  protection,  and 


lao 


I'KIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIO^'S,    DISABILITIES. 


[§  82 


tent/*  or  liable  on  the  bond.'^^  Under  some  of  the  measures  un- 
der discnssion,  it  has  been  held  that  the  proceedings,  instituted  in 
reliance  on  a  bond  given  by  an  attorney,  are  themselves  thereby 
affected;  thus  appeals  have  been  dismissed,^'  and  writs  qnashed." 
even  though  the  local  law  would  hold  the  attorney  responsible  on 
the  bond.^^  On  the  other  hand,  however,  where  only  a  rule  of 
court  has  been  violated,  it  seems  that  the  appeal  will  not  be  dis- 
missed,^" but  that  other  sureties  may  be  substituted  in  lieu  of  the 
attorney.^ 

§  82.  Attorney  Acting  as  Notary  Public  in  Client's  Af- 
fairs. —  It  has  long  been  a  court  rule  in  England  that  an  affidavit 
made  before  an  attorney  for  the  party  taking  the  oath  cannot  be 
heard,^  and  this   rule  obtains  not  only  at  common  law   but  in 


shall  sufl'er  therefrom,  they  at  least 
may  learn  caution  for  the  future,  and 
others  may  profit  by  their  example." 

15  Towle  r.  Bradley,  2  S.  D.  472.  50 
X.  W.  1057. 

In  Wisconsin  a  statute  prohibiting 
practicing  attorneys  from  becoming 
sureties  has  been  neld  to  be  manda- 
tory and  absolutely  to  disqualify  an 
attorney  to  act  as  surety.  See  Coth- 
ren  r.  C'onnaughton,  24  Wis.  134; 
Rranger  r.  Buttrick,  30  Wis.  153;  Gil- 
l)ank  r.  Stcplienaon,  30  Wis.  155. 
f ''impure  Stark  r.  Small,  72  Wis.  215, 
39  N.  W.  359. 

16  Dennett  r.  Reisdorfer,  15  S.  D. 
4fif),  90  N.  W.  138. 

17  Love  V.  Sheffelin,  7  Fla.  40. 

A'o  Jurisdiction  on  Appeal. — Since 
a  person  cannot  be  surety  for  himself, 
an  appeal  bond  signed  by  a  judgment 
defendant,  and  an  attorney  in  active 
practice,  on  an  appeal  from  a  justice's 
judgment  to  the  superior  court,  is  not 
hudicicnt  to  give  the  super ifir  court 
jurisdiction.  Ilmlson  v.  Smith,  111 
la.  411,  82  N.  W.  943. 


18  Sherman  v.  State,  4  Kan.  570 ; 
Cook  V.  Caraway,  29  Kan.  41. 

19  Cook  V.  Caraway,  29  Kan.  41. 

20  De  Jarnatt  r.  Marquez,  127  Cal. 
558,  60  Pac.  45,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  90; 
Hays  V.  Rush,  8  Oliio  Dec.  (Reprint) 
50,  5  Cine.  L.  Bui.  328. 

1  Grahame  r.  Douglas.  Wright 
(Ohio)  738;  Hays  v.  Rush,  8  Ohio 
Dec.  (Reprint)  50,  5  Cine.  L.  Bui. 
328. 

2  Hopkinson  v.  Buckley,  8  Taunt. 
74,  4  E.  C.  L.  23;  Jenkins  V.  Mason, 
3  Moo.  C.  PI.  325,  4  E.  C.  L.  434; 
Rex  V.  Wallace,  3  T.  R.  (Eng.)  403; 
Rex  V.  Coaler,  2  Ken.  K.  B,  pt.  1 
(Eng.)  421;  Northumberland  v.  Todd, 

7  Ch.  D.  (Eng.)  777;  Batt  u.  Vaisey, 
1  Price  (Eng.)  116;  Smith  v.  Wood- 
roffe,  6  Price  (Eng.)  230;  Cooper  v. 
Archer,  12  Price  (Eng.)  149:  Hors- 
fall  V.  ]\ratt]ie\vman,  3  M.  &  S.  (Kng.) 
154.  See  also  Turner  v.  Bates,  10  Q. 
B.  292.  59  E.  C.  L.  292:   Doe  r.  Roe, 

8  Dowl.   (Eng.)    340. 

Ajjidavits  to  Hold  in  Bail. — By  a 
rule    of    the    Court    of    K.ng's    Bench, 


§  S2] 


PKIVILEGES,    EXEMrTIOXS,    DISABILITIES. 


131 


equity;  ^  but  it  must  expressly  appear  that  the  notary  public  was 
an  attorney  of  record,  in  a  pending'  suit,  for  the  party  taking  the 
oath,  at  the  time  the  atHdavit  was  made.*  Following  the  English 
rule,  it  is  held  in  a  number  of  other  jurisdictions  that,  on  the 
ground  that  such  practice  is  of  doubtful  propriety,  a  notary  public 
who  is  an  attorney  for  one  of  the  parties  in  a  pending  cause  can- 
not take  his  client's  affidavit  therein,  and  that  if  he  does  so  the 
affidavit  will  not  be  received.  In  some  states  this  rule  has  re- 
ceived statutor}^  recognition,  and  in  such  cases  the  effect  of  the 
affidavit  will,  of  course,  be  measured  by  the  language  of  the  act.* 


Trinity  Term,  15  Geo.  II.,  affidavits  to 
hold  to  bail  are  made  an  exception  to 
the  rule,  and  such  affidavits  may  be 
made  before  the  attorney  or  solicitor 
in  the  cause.  Reg.  v.  Steadman,  12  N. 
Bruns.  3GS ;  McManus  r.  \Yells,  29  N. 
Bruns.  449;  Tidds  K.  B.  Pr.  494.  See 
also  Brett  V.  Smith,  1  Ont.  Pr.  309; 
McLean  v.  Weeks,  61  Me.  277. 

3  Matter  of  Hogan,  3  Atk.  (Eng.) 
813. 

4  Beaumont  r.  Dean,  4  Dowl.  (Eng.) 
354;  Kidd  v.  Davis,  5  Dowl.  (Eng.) 
508. 

5  Arkansas. — Hammond  v.  Freeman, 
9  Ark.  62 ;  Coleman  v.  Frauenthal,  40 
Ark.  302. 

Colorado. — Anderson  r.  Sloan,  1 
Colo.  33;  Martin  r.  Skehan,  2  Colo. 
614;  Frybarger  v.  McMillen,  15  Colo. 
349,  25  Pac.  713. 

Georgia. — Wilkowski  v.  Halle,  37 
Ga.  078,  95  Am.  Dec.  374:  Nichols  v. 
Hampton,  46  Ga.  253 ;  Moultrie  Lum- 
ber Co.  V.  Jenkins,  121  Ga.  721,  49  S. 
E.  078. 

Kansas. — Tootle  r.  Smith,  34  Kan. 
27,  7  Pac.  577:  Swearingen  v.  Howser, 
37  Kan.  126.  14  Pac.  436;  Schoen  V. 
Sunderland.  39  Kan.  758,  18  Pac.  913. 

Michir/an. — ^IcCaslin  i'.  Camp,  20 
Mich.  390:  Snyder  r.  Hemmingway, 
47   Midi.   519,    11    X.    \Y.   3f.l;    Brad- 


ley V.  Andrews,  51  Mich.  100,  16  N. 
W.  250;  Sullivan  v.  Hall,  86  Mich.  7, 
48  N.  W.  646,  13  L.R.A.  556.  See  also 
Thomas  E.  Lynch  Co.  r.  Wayne  Cir- 
cuit .Judge,  129  Mich.  110,  88  N.  W. 
387;  Chamberlain  r.  Saginaw,  135 
Mich.  01,  97  X.  W.  150. 

Xebraska. — Collins  /".  Stewart,  10 
Xeb.  52,  20  X.  W.  11;  Horkey  r.  Ken- 
dall, 53  Xeb.  522,  73  X.  W.  953. 

Keio  Jersey. — Den  v.  Geiger,  9  X.  .7. 
L.  225;  Pullen  V.  Pullen,  17  Atl.  310. 

New  York. — Adams  v.  Mills,  3  How. 
Pr.  219;  Anonymous,  4  How.  Pr.  290; 
Post  r.  Coleman,  9  How.  Pr.  04;  Bliss 
r.  :\lolter,  58  How.  Pr.  112;  People  v. 
Spalding,  2  Paige,  326:  Griffin  r. 
Borst,  4  Wend.  195 ;  Vary  c.  Godfrey, 
6  Cow.  587 ;  Taylor  v.  Hatch,  12  Johns. 
340;  Willard  v.  .Judd.  15  Johns.  531; 
Hallenback  v.  Whitaker,  17  Johns.  2; 
Kuh  V.  Barnett,  57  Super.  Ct.  234,  6 
X.  Y.  S.  881. 

0/ao.— Ward  v.  Ward,  10  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.   650. 

Okhihoma. — Shanholtzcr  r.  Thomp- 
son, 24  Okla.  198,  103  Pac.  595,  138 
Am.  St.  Rep.  877 ;  Crawford  r.  Fergu- 
son, 5  Okla.  Crim.  377,  115  Pac.  278. 

Pennsylvania. — Wilhelmi  r.  Wil- 
helmi,  9  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  685  (affidavit  to 
libel  in  divorce) . 

Texas. — McGinse   v.    State,    141    S. 


132 


PraVILEGES,    EXK-Ml'TIOXS,    DJSAJUT.ITIES. 


[§  82 


It  has  been  held,  however,  that  the  rule  exeliuling  affidavits  made 
before  the  affiant's  attorney  is  purely  technical,  and  will  not  be  ex- 
tended.^ Thns  it  has  been  held  that  the  rule  does  not  apply  where 
suit  has  not  been  commenced  ; '  nor  does  it  extend  to  a  partner  of 
the  attorney  on  record,  although  he  is  interested  in  the  profits  of  the 
business.®  So  it  has  been  held  that  an  affidavit  taken  in  violation 
of  the  rule  is  not  void,  but  merely  voidable,^  and  may  be  cured 
by  amendment. ■^°  In  some  jurisdictions  it  is  held  that  an  attorney 
who  is  also  a  notary  public  may  take  his  client's  oath  to  an  affi- 
davit, and  that  the  affidavit  will  be  received,  there  being  no  statu- 
tory objection  thereto;  ^^  but  such  practice  does  not  meet  with  the 


W.  268:  Williams  v.  State,  U4  S.  W. 
622 ;  Stapp  v.  State.  144  S.  W.  941 ; 
Hogan  V.  State.  147  S.  W.  871 :  Pullen 
r.  State,  156  S.  W.  935;  Luttrell  v. 
State,  157  S.  W.  157. 

Canada. — Gosselin  v.  Beigevin,  11 
Quebec  Super.  Ct.  288;  Dunsmuir  r. 
Klondike,  etc..  Gold  Fields,  6  British 
Columbia  200. 

6  Griffin  f.  Borst,  4  Wend.  (X.  Y.) 
195;  Willard  v.  Judd,  15  Johns.  (X. 
Y.)   531. 

TakiiKj  Deposition. — An  attorney  of 
a  party  in  obtaining  a  judgment  may 
act  as  commissioner  in  taking  a  depo- 
sition for  his  client,  to  be  used  in  a 
claim  suit  growing  out  of  the  judg- 
ment, he  not  being  the  attorney  in  the 
claim  suit,  and  it  not  being  shown 
tliat  he  has  any  interest  in  tiie  event 
of  tlie  suit.  Taylor  '".  P.ranili  Bank. 
14  Ala.  6:53. 

7(arr  /'.  Hooper.  4S  Kan.  253,  29 
l'a<'.  .'i'-IS:  Adams  r.  Mills,  3  llow.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.}  219;  Post  /•.  (  olciiiaii,  9  llow. 
I'r.  (  X.  v.)  64:  \ary  r.  (loilfrcy.  6 
Cow.  (  ,\.  \.)  5S7  :  I'riipjr  r.  Siialdillg, 
2   i'aige    (X.  Y.)   .326. 

8  llallciiback  r.  Wiiifakcr,  17  .l<.lins. 
(X.  Y.)  2. 

9C<dcmaii  ''.  I''r:iiicii(li;il.  16  .\rk. 
302;  l.irirk  r.  I.ilcl.licM.  Ill  111.  169, 
31    X.    K.    123;    llollcnbcck   r.   Dctrick, 


162  111.  388,  44  X.  E.  7.32;  Phillips 
V.  Phil'ips.  185  111.  629,  57  X.  E.  796; 
Gilmore  r.  Hempstead,  4  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)    153. 

The  ]Michigan  statute  (1  Comp. 
Laws.  §  2640)  making  it  unlawful 
for  notaries  public  who  are  also  at- 
torneys to  administer  oaths  in  causes 
in  which  they  are  engaged  profession- 
ally, does  not  invalidate  a  claim 
against  a  city  for  damages  for  per- 
sonal injuries,  which  is  sworn  to  be- 
fore a  notary  public  who  subsequent- 
ly brings  suit  for  the  injuries  as 
attorney  for  the  claimant.  Allen  v. 
West  Bay  City,  140  Mich.  Ul.  6  Ann. 
Cas.  35,  103  X.  W.  514. 

10  Swearingen  r.  Howser.  37  Kan. 
126,  14  Pac.  436;  Dobry  r.  Western 
]\lfg.  Co.,  57  Xeb.  228,  77  X.  W.  656. 

11  United  States.  —  Atkinson  r. 
(Jlenn,  4  Cranch  (C.  C.)  134,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  Xo.  610. 

California. — Kuhland  (".  Sedgwick, 
17  Cal.  123;  Reavis  V.  Cowell,  56  Cal. 

Florida. — Savage  r.  Parker,  53  Fla. 
1002.  43  So.  507. 

Illinois. — Richardson  /".  Slieehan, 
4<;  III.  App.  528,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  147  Til.  366.  35  X.  E.  619; 
l'"vaiis  /•.  Sell  river  T.aiindry  Co.,  57 
111.  .\i)p.  l.".(l.  Sec  nlso  MacKcn/ie  v. 
MacKcnzic,  23H  111.  616,  87  X.  E.  848. 


§    S3]  PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIO^"S,    DISABILITIES.  133 

approval  of  the  courts  even   though  they  deem  the  act  valid. ^^ 

Libel  and  Slander. 

§  83.  Generally.  — Words  which  are  written  concerning  a  per- 
son ill  his  business,  occupation  or  profession,  and  which  impute  to 
him  a  lack  of  knowledge,  skill  or  integrity  in  such  business,  occu- 
pation or  profession,  and  which  thereby  tend  to  injure  him  there- 
in, are  libelous  per  se,  even  though  they  would  not  be  so  actionable 
if  spoken  or  written  of  one  not  engaged  in  such  business,  occupa- 
tion or  profession. ^^  Thus  words  published  of  a  lawyer  with  re- 
spect to  his  profession,  and  which  tend  to  injure  or  disgrace  him 
therein,  are  held  to  be  actionable  per  f<e}^  But  to  be  actionable 
because  spoken  of  an  attorney  and  counselor  at  law,  the  words 


Indiana. — Yeagloy  r.  Webb.  80  Iiul. 
424. 

Massachusetts. — McDonald  r.  Wil- 
lis.   143   Mass.    452,    9    N.    E.    835. 

Minnesota. — Young  r.  Young,  18 
Minn.  90. 

Missouri. — Smith  i".  Ponath,  17 
Mo.  App.  2G2. 

\ew  Mexico. — Genest  v.  Las  Vegas 
Masonic  Bldg.  Assoc.  11  N.  ^I.  251, 
67  Pac.  743. 

Texas. — Kosniinsky  r.  Raymond. 
20  Tex.  Civ.  App.  702,  51  S.  W.  51; 
Ryburn  v.  Moore,  72  Tex.  85.  10  S. 
W.  393.  See  also  Bradberry  r.  State, 
7  Tex.   App.  375. 

Wisconsin.- — Dawes  v.  Glasgow,  1 
Finn.   171. 

12Allis  V.  Stowell,  85  Fed.  481; 
Savage  v.  Parker,  53  Fla.  1002,  43 
So.  507;  Linck  r.  Litchfield.  141  111. 
409,  31  X.  E.  123;  Hollenbeck  v.  De- 
trick,  162  111.  388,  44  X.  E.  732; 
Phillips  r.  Phillips,  185  111.  629,  57 
K.  E.   790. 

13  White  r.  Xichols,  3  How.  285,  11 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  600;  Xicholas  v.  Daily 
Reporter    Co.,    30    Utah    74,    8    Ann. 


Cas.  841.  83  Pac.  573.  116  Am.  St. 
Rep.   796.  3  L.R.A.(X.S.)    339. 

14  Riggs  V.  Denniston,  3  Johns.  Cas. 
(X.  Y.)  198,  2  Am.  Dec.  145;  Mat- 
tice  V.  Wilcox,  59  Hun  620  mem..  36 
X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  914;  Gibson  ;;.  Sun 
Printing,  etc.  Assoc,  71  App.  Div.  506, 
76  X^.  Y.  S.  197;  Chipman  ;•.  Cook, 
2  Tyler  (Vt. )  456.  See  also  Register 
Xewspaper  Co.  v.  Worten,  111  S.  W. 
093,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep.  840;  Sanford  v. 
Bennett,  24  X.  Y.  20. 

Damages. — Proof  of  the  extent  of 
the  plaintiff's  practice  is  admissible 
on  the  question  of  damages.  Turner 
V.  Hearst,  115  Cal.  394,  47  Pac  129, 
wherein  the  court  said:  "Plaintiff 
was  a  lawyer  engaged  in  the  practice 
of  his  profession.  The  words  of  the 
publication  being  admittedly  libelous 
per  se,  and  affecting  plaintiff's  stand- 
ing in  his  profession,  it  was  proper 
for  the  jury,  in  estimating  the  gen- 
eral damages  to  which  plaintiff  was 
thus  entitled,  to  know  his  position 
and  standing  in  society,  and  the 
nature  and  extent  of  his  professional 
practice.  General  damages,  in  an 
action    where   the   words   are   libelous 


13i 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTION'S,    DISABILITIES. 


[§ 


must  be  spoken  of  his  professional  character  and  conduct,  and 
must  be  of  such  description  as  directly  to  touch  that  professional 
character  and  conduct.  If  the  words  themselves  be  not  of  this 
description  and  character,  no  finding  of  a  jury  or  explanation  by 
innuendo  can  make  them  actionable."  Thus  it  has  been  held  that 
in  an  action  on  a  charge  of  fraud  against  an  attorney,  as  mayor 
of  a  city,  a  declaration  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  court  in  sub- 
mitting to  the  jury  the  question  of  damages  in  his  profession  un- 
less it  connects  the  libelous  charge  by  the  proper  colloquium  with 
his  profession  and  alleges  special  damage. ^^  Where,  however,  the 
publication  is  libelous  per  se,  without  reference  to  the  professional 
character  of  the  plaintiif,  the  plaintiff  may  connect  the  libelous 
words  with  his  professional  character,  and  recover  the  natural  and 
proximate  damages  to  him,  in  his  profession,  resulting  therefrom.^' 


per  se,  are  such  as  compensate  for  the 
natural  and  probable  consequences  of 
the  libel,  and  certainly  a  natural  and 
probable  consequence  of  such  a  charge 
against  a  laAvyer  would  be  to  injure 
him  in  his  professional  standing  and 
practice." 

15  Dauncey  r.  Holloway,  [1901]  2 
K.  B.  (Eng. )  441;  Keene  v.  Tribune 
Assoc,  76  Hun  488,  27  N.  Y.  S.  1045; 
Goodenow  r.  Tappan.  1  Ohio  GO. 

An  Attempted  Justification  of  the 
charge  of  professional  misconduct  is 
insutfieicnt  which  does  not  show  that 
the  plaintiff  was  acting  in  his  pro- 
fessional capacity  in  doing  wliat  he 
was  charged  witli,  or  tbat  he  had  been 
employed  as  an  attorney  by  some  one 
connected  with  the  transaction. 
Brown  r.  Burnett,  10  111  App.  270. 

leSmedley  v.  Soule,  125  Mich.  192, 
84  X.  W.  03,  7  Detroit  Leg.  N.  550, 
followed  in  Line  v.  Spies,  139  Midi. 
484.   102   X.   W.  993. 

17  Sanderson  r.  Caldwell,  45  X.  Y. 
398.  6  Am.  i{ep.  105. 

In  a  case  wbcrein  it  apprjirod  (liiit 
tlie    i)Iaintiff,   an    attoniry   and   judge, 


complained  of  a  reference  to  him  as 
an  "unscrupulous  office  holder,"  and 
as  not  a  fit  and  competent  servant  of 
the  people,  and  as  one  who  exempted 
liis  political  friends  from  punishment, 
it  was  held  that  the  language  was 
libelous  per  se,  but  that,  since  there 
was  no  allegation  that  the  libelous 
matter  was  published  concerning  the 
plaintiff  in  his  office  as  judge  or  as^ 
solicitor  or  attorney,  he  was  confined 
to  such  damages  as  he  might  be  able 
to  prove  he  had  sustained  in  his 
private  character.  Stewart  r.  Cod- 
rington,  55  Fla.  327,  45  So.  809. 

Where  it  was  cluirged  that  a  notary 
public  certified  the  aclvnowledgment  of 
ten  persons  as  having  been  taken  by 
him  to  a  bond,  and  that  the  persons 
purporting  to  sign  it  did  not  know 
tluit  tiieir  names  were  on  the  bond,  it 
was  held  tliat  no  extrinsic  facts  were 
needed  to  sliow  that  tlie  words  were 
(■a|)iil)Ie  of  a  libelous  meaning  in 
tiiemsel\  cs.  Henderson       V..     Com- 

mercial Advertiser  Assoc.  46  Hun  504, 
12  \.  v.  St.  Rep.  649,  affirmed  111  X. 
Y.  ()85.  19  X.  E.  286. 


§  84] 


PKIVILEGES,    ILXE.MI'TIO.N.S,    DISAIJILITIKS. 


1  ''s: 


In  disbarment  proceedinos  the  attorney  for  the  petitioner  is  priv- 
ileged in  drafting  and  printing  qnestions  impliedly  damaging  to 
the  character  of  the  accnsed,  and  in  snhmitting  snch  printed  qnes- 
tions to  persons  who  are  to  be  called  as  witnesses,  and  snch  privi- 
lege extends  to  the  printer  employed  by  him.^^  ]3ut  a  newspaper 
report  of  the  contents  of  a  petition  for  the  removal  of  jdaintiff  from 
the  bar,  the  petition  inclnding  allegations  which  wonld  be  action- 
able nnless  jnstitied,  is  not  privileged,  althongh  the  report  is  fair 
and  accnrate.^' 

§  84.  Actionable  Language.  —  A  charge  against  a  lawyer  of 
want  of  fidelity  in  his  profession,  in  offering  to  divnlge  the  secrets 
intrnsted  to  him  by  his  client,  is  libelons  per  sc.^°  State- 
ments charging  an  attorney,  in  effect,  with  giving  dishonest 
and  nnprofessional  advice,  making  false  statements  in  professional 
dealings,  incurring  loss  of  confidence  by  misconduct,  embezzling 
moneys,  making  false  charges  for  services,  and  extorting  excessive 
com])ensation  are  libelons  o\\  their  face.^^  It  is  libelons  per  se  to 
write  ('f  a  lawyer  that  he  is  dishonest,  and  that  he  has  been  guilty 


In  Clarl<  r.  Anderson,  11  X.  Y.  S. 
72!).  it  was  held  tliat  it  was  at  least 
a  question  for  the  jury  whether  a 
charge  of  conspiracy  to  swindle  had  a 
tendency  to  injure  the  plaintiff  in  his 
business  or  occupation. 

A  circular  reading  as  follows: 
"Make  Burr  Mattice  attorney  for  the 
village,  so  that  every  person  that 
gets  spanked  on  the  ice  will  be  able 
to  obtain  a  judgment  from  one  thou- 
sand dollars  to  ten  thousand  dollars 
against  the  village,"  meaning  there- 
by to  charge  the  plaintiff  with  want 
of  skill  and  care  as  the  attorney  for 
the  village,  has  been  held  libelous 
per  se.  Mattice  r.  Wilcox,  71  Hun 
487.  24  X.  Y.  S.  1000.  affirmed  147  X. 
Y.  624,  42  X.  E.  270,  59  Hun  020. 
mem.  13  X.  Y.  S.  330,  affirmed  icith- 


out  opinion  129  X.  Y.  G33,  29  X.  E. 
1030. 

It  is  actionable  per  se  to  say  of  a 
lawyer,  "He  is  not  a  member  of  this 
bar.  He  is  a  fraud.  He  never  has 
been  admitted  to  practice  law,  and 
has  no  right  to  appear  for  any  one, 
and  that  if  never  admitted  he  never 
could  be  admitted."  Goldrick  r.  I-«vy, 
8  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  146.  6  Cine. 
L.  Bui.  20. 

18  Youmans  r.  Smith,  153  X.  Y. 
214,  47  X.  E.  265. 

19  Rex  r.  Wright,  8  T.  R.  (Eng.) 
293;  Cowley  r.  Pulsifer,  137  ilass. 
392,  50  Am.  Rep.  318. 

20  Riggs  r.  Denniston,  3  John.  Cas. 
(X.  Y.)    198.  2  Am.  Dec.  145. 

21  Atkinson  r.  Detroit  Free  Press, 
46  Mich.  341,  9  X.  W.  501. 


136 


PRIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIO.XS,    BISA  BII-ITIKS. 


rs 


84 


of  a  breach  of  trust  bj  appropriating  his  client's  property  to  his 
own  use.^ 

Any  oral  or  written  words  which  impute  to  an  attorney  at  law 
the  want  of  requisite  qualifications  to  practice  law,  or  which 
charge  him  with  having  been  guilty  of  corrupt,  dishonest,  or  im- 
proper practice  in  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  a  lawyer,  nre 
actionable  per  se.^  To  impute  a  corrupt  or  dishonorable  action  to 
an  attorney,  in  the  unlawful  settling  of  a  criminal  prosecution,  is 
actionable  per  se  though  it  falls  short  of  a  charge  of  bribery.^ 

It  has  been  held  libelous  to  speak  as  follows  of  a  lawyer :  "He  is 
a  damned  rascal  and  an  immoral  and  base  man ;  and  unless  ignor- 
ance of  law  makes  a  lawyer,  he  is  no  lawyer.  He  is  an  ambidexter 
and  a  disgrace  to  his  profession.* 

A  charge  that  "you  are  the  dirty  sewer  through  which  all  the 
slums  of  this  embezzlement  have  flowed,"  spoken  of  an  attorney  in 
his  profession,  is  actionable  per  se} 

It  has  been  held  libelous  to  charge  an  attorney  with  making  an 
arrangement  with  a  client  whe^^eby  the  attorney  undertook  to  pros- 
ecute the  latter's  action  at  his  own  expense  in  consideration  of  a 
division  of  the  amount,  if  any,  which  should  be  collected  upon  the 


iSee  Cole  v.  Wilson,  18  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)   212. 

In  Pierce  v.  Rodliff,  95  Me.  346,  50 
Atl.  32,  tlie  following  advertisement 
was  publislied  in  a  newspaper: 
"Wanted.  All  persons  that  have  put 
bills  for  collection  in  hands  of  Thos. 
H.  B.  Pierce  of  Dexter  from  the  year 
1885  to  August  1899,  and  received  un- 
satisfactory returns,  are  requested  to 
communicate  witli  X.  Y.  Z.  Post- 
Ollicc,  Dfxtcr,  Mc.,"  the  meaning 
whereof,  according  to  the  innuendo 
in  tlie  plaintiff's  declaration,  was  tliat 
the  [)laintiir  had  sin(;e  1885  been  con- 
rlu<-ting  Ills  liusincHH  as  an  attorney 
dishonestly  and  unsatisfactorily  to 
liis  clients,  and  hud  not  paid  ovcj- 
moneys  collected  jis  his  duty  ic(niitcd. 
Tlie    presiding    judge    iiistrncted    th(! 


jury  as  follows:  "I  instruct  you,  as 
a  matter  of  law,  that  the  advertise- 
ment is  susceptible  of  the  meaning 
that  is  put  upon  it  by  the  plaintiff  in 
his  writ.  It  is  susceptible  of  that 
meaning,  but  you  will  determine 
v.hether  or  not  it  is  so  understood, 
whether  or  not  that  is  the  real  mean- 
ing to  be  put  to  it.  and  if  you  find 
that  it  is,  then,  gentlemen,  it  is  libel- 
ous." 

2  Montgomery  v.  New  Era  Printing 
Co.,  229  Pa.  St.  lf>5.  Ann.  Cas.  1912 
A  375,  78  Atl.  85. 

3  Wallace  r.  Jameson,  179  Pa.  St. 
98,  30  Atl.  142. 

4(ioodcnow  r.  Tapjian.  1   Oliio  (51. 
5  Mains    r.    Whiting,   87    Mich.   172, 
49  N.  W.  559, 


84] 


PKIVII-r.GES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISAlilLITIES. 


137 


claim. ^  A  charge  that  a  viHage  attorney  has  been  guilty,  as  such, 
t>i'  perjury  and  graft,  and  that  he  is  eitlier  woefully  incompetent  or 
a  consummate  pettifogger,  is  libelous.'  A  statement  with  ref- 
erence to  a  lawyer  who  had  been  counsel  for  the  treasury  depart- 
ment, that  his  removal  from  such  office  on  the  ground  of  ineffi- 
ciency had  been  recommended  as  the  result  of  an  investigation  of 
his  office,  is  libelous.'  A  newspaper  article  reflecting  upon  the 
professional  conduct  of  an  attorney  is  libelous.^     It  is  libelous  for 


6  Gaiidet  r.  Esplin,  9  Quebec  Super. 
Ct.  210. 

7  Smith  V.  Hubbell,  142  Mich.  637. 
106  N.  W.  547.  See  also  the  report 
of  the  same  case  in  151  Mich.  59,  114 
N.  W.  865.  It  is  libelous  per  se  to 
write  of  an  attorney:  "We  are  look- 
ing into  the  doings  of  this  tribe  of 
attorneys.  It  looks  very  much  as 
tliough  they  put  their  heads  together, 
and  each  of  them  get  as  much  out  of 
the  estate  as  possible.  An  outside 
attorney  told  me  a  few  days  ago  that 
Mosnat  had  put  a  lien  on  tlie  Jolin 
Zeller  estate  for  $1,250  on  account  of 
the  heirs  you  represent,  and  $500 
extra  to  fight  the  church,  making 
$1750  for  one  and  the  same  thing. 
'Outrage!'"  Mosnat  v.  Snyder,  105 
la.  500,  75  N.  W.  356,  wherein  the 
court  said:  "The  language  of  the 
paragraph,  to  us.  admits  of  no  other 
conclusion  than  that  tlie  plaintiff,  in 
liis  professional  capacity,  liad  acted 
outrageously  dishonest  in  taking 
from  the  estate.  The  other  language 
of  the  letter  intensifies,  rather  than 
weakens,  such  a  conclusion,  for  it  pre- 
sents facts  and  figures  from  which  the 
statement  appears  to  be  true;  and 
they  were  evidently  so  intended.  A 
quite  conclusive  test  is  this:  If  the 
statements  fairly  deducible  from  that 
letter  are  true,  the  plaintiff  is  not  an 
honest  man  in  his  professional  doings, 
and    is   not   entitled    to   public    confi- 


dence. No  discreet  business  man,  be- 
lieving those  statements,  would  in- 
trust him  with  business  of  such  a 
character.  Such  a  publication,  of 
course,  brings  one  into  disrepute,  and 
produces  a  perceptible  injury,  if  not 
true.  To  test  the  question  of  the  let- 
ter being  libelous  on  its  face,  we  treat 
the  statements  as  untrue.  It  is  not 
to  be  questioned  that  the  letter  im- 
puted to  the  plaintiff  gross  profes- 
sional misconduct." 

8  Gibson  r.  Sun  Printing,  etc., 
Assoc,  71  App.  Div.  560,  76  X.  Y. 
S.   197. 

In  a  case  wherein  the  charge 
complained  of  was  that  the  plaintiff, 
a  city  attorney,  liad  resigned  his 
office  pending  important  litigation  on 
the  part  of  the  city  which  had  been 
induced  by  his  advice.  Brewer,  J., 
said :  "The  lawyer  who  has  the  repu- 
tation of  advising  his  client  into 
trouble,  and  then  leaving  him  to  get 
out  of  it  the  best  way  he  can,  is  one 
who  would  be  shunned  by  all  prudent 
men  in  search  of  legal  counsel  and 
assistance;  and  to  charge  a  lawyer 
with  such  a  course  of  conduct  is  cer- 
tainly calculated  to  make  him  in- 
famovis  and  odious  in  the  sight  of 
all."  Hetherington  v.  Sterry,  28 
Kan.  426,  42  Am.  Rep.  169. 

9  Reynolds  ;;.  Holland,  46  Wash. 
537,  90  Pac.  648. 


138 


PEIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISAUIHTIES. 


[§  Si 


a  newspaper  to  write  of  a  lawyer  that  he  knows  reasons  too  numer- 
ous to  mention  why  he  is  unfit  to  be  district  attorney,  or  even  to 
practice  law,  and  to  follow  it  up  by  the  alleged  particulars  of  the 
reasons  too  numerous  to  mention,  including  a  charge  of  guilty  con- 
duct on  the  part  of  his  brother,  where  the  imputation  contained  in 
such  charge  is  that  the  plaintiff  had  participated  in  the  miscon- 
duct of  his  brother — either  colluded  with  it,  or  at  the  very  least 
connived  at  it.^° 

A  new^spaper  heading  stating  that  an  opposing  lawyer's  brief  in 
extradition  proceedings  had  charged  the  plaintiff  with  perjury, 
has  been  held  libelous.^^  A  headline,  "How^  lawyer  Bishop  treats 
his  clients,"  has  also  been  held  libelous.^^  An  article  referring  to 
a  lawyer  as  "the  lawyer,  or  fellow  with  a  license  to  practice,"  and 
which  states  that  the  lawyer  in  question  is  the  friend  and  com- 
panion of  criminals,  and  that  by  reason  of  his  intimacy  and  popu- 
larity wdth  them  he  secures  a  large  part  of  his  practice,  is 
libelous." 

An  article  charging  a  lawyer  with  presenting  a  bill  twice  for  the 
same  services  in  the  same  case  imputes  to  him  dishonest  and  dis- 
honorable action  in  his  professional  capacity,  and  proof  of  the  pub- 
lication of  such  article  establishes  a  prima  facie  case.^*  It  is 
actionable  per  se  to  warn  one  against  the  employment  of  a  certain 
attorney.^^    It  has  also  been  held  libelous  per  se  to  say  of  a  lawyer 


lOLuzenburg  r.  O'Malley,  116  La. 
f)99,  41   So.  41. 

"Brown  r.  Globe  Printing  Co.,  213 
Mo.  611,  112  S.  W.  402,  127  Am.  St. 
Rep.  627;  Brown  v.  Publishers 
George  Knapp  &  Co.,  213  Mo.  655, 
112  S.  W.  474. 

12  Bishop  V.  Latimer.  4  L.  T.  N.  S. 
(Kng.)    775. 

13  Register  Newspaper  Co.  v.  Wor- 
tcn.  111  S.  W.  6J)3,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
840. 

14  Moiilgi>inery  v.  New  Kra  Print- 
ing Co.,  229  Pa.  St.  105,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912A,  375,  78  Atl.  85. 

16  liroHHoit  f.  Turcottc,  20  L.  C. 
.lur.   141. 


In  Godson  v.  Home.  1  Brod.  &  B.  7, 
5  E.  C.  L.  3,  3  :Moo.  C.  PI.  223.  it 
was  held  that  it  was  for  the  jury  to 
say  whether  the  following  language 
was  a  caution  against  employing  at- 
torneys in  general  or  the  plaintifi"  in 
particular:  "If  you  will  be  misled 
by  an  attorney  who  only  coMsidcrs 
his  own  interest,  you  will  have  to 
repent  it;  you  may  thiid<.  wIkmi  you 
have  once  ordered  your  attorney  to 
write  to  Mr.  Giles,  he  would  not  do 
atiy  more  without  your  further 
oiders,  hut  if  you  once  set  hinv 
al>()nt  it.  he  will  go  to  any  length 
without    further    orders."     Tlie     jury 


§  84] 


PEIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


131) 


that  be  is  a  clicat,^®  or  that  he  is  a  "pettifogg'iiig  shyster,"  ^''  or  that 
he  is  a  ''shyster,"  ^^  or  that  he  is  a  "jack  leg  lawyer,"  ^^  or  that  he 
is  a  "dunce,"  ^°  or  that  he  is  a  "dishonest  toad"  imagining  himself 
a  lawyer,^  or  that  he  is  an  imposter  upon  the  courts,^  or  that  "he  is 
only  taking  the  matter  up  in  order  to  got  a  fee  out  of  you."  ^  or 
that  he  will  get  little  by  the  law,*  or  that  "he  is  a  cheating  knave, 
and  takes  extraordinary  fees  and  extortion  and  hath  no  more  wit 
than  an  owl,"  ^  or  to  say,  "Does  he  pretend  to  be  a  lawyer  ?  He  is 
no  more  a  lawyer  than  the  Devil."  ^  So,  also,  it  is  libelous  per  se  to 
charge  a  lawyer  with  soliciting  business,"^  or  with  falsely  personat- 
ing a  constable,*  or  with  betraying  his  client,^  or  with  being  a  horse 
thief, ^°  or  with  "sharp  practice,"  "  or  with  being  a  promoter  of 
vexatious  suits,^^  or  with  the  misappropriation  of  money, ^^  or  with 
a  wicked  and  corrupt  disregard  of  his  official  oath/*  or  with  asking 
fees  which  amount  to  petit  larceny,^*  or  with  having  been  arrested 
on  a  criminal  charge, ^^  or  with  being  as  bad  as  his  partner  who 


found   a  verdict  for  the  plaintifi"  for 
one  shilling. 

16  Powers  V.  Cary,  64  Me.  9 ;  Eusli 
V    Cavenaugh,   2   Pa.   St.    187. 

17  Bailey  v.  Kalamazoo  Pub.  Co. 
40  Mich.  251. 

18  Gribble  v.  Pioneer  Press  Co.  34 
Minn.  342,  25  N.  W.  710. 

19  See  Samples  v.  Carnahan.  21 
Ind.  App.  55,  51  X.  E.  425. 

2C  Peard  r.  Jones,  Cro.  Car.  (Eng. ) 
382. 

1  Wynne  v.  Parsons,  57  Conn.  73, 
17  Atl.  362. 

2Goldricl<;  v.  Levy,  8  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)   146,  6  Cine.  L.  Bui.  20. 

3  Weber  v.  Credit  Office,  55  Misc. 
386,   106  X.   Y.  S.  583. 

4  Peard  v.  Jones,  Cro.  Car.  (Eng.) 
382. 

5  Scroop's  Case.  Frcem.  K.  B. 
(Eng.)    276. 

6  Day  r.  Buller,  3  Wils.  C.  PI 
(Eng.)"  59. 


I  Register  Newspaper  Co.  v.  Wor- 
ten.  111  S.  W.  093,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
840. 

8  McDermott  v.  Evening  Journal 
Assoc,  43  X,  J.  L.  488,  39  Am.  Rep. 
600. 

9  Ludwig  f.  Cramer,  53  Wis.  193, 
10  X.  W.  81. 

10  Johnson  v.  St.  Louis  Dispatch 
Co.,  2  Mo.  App.  565. 

II  Boydell  v.  Jones,  4  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)  446,  7  Dowl.  210,  1  H.  &  H. 
408. 

12  Rex  V.  Lake,  Freem.  K.  B. 
(Eng.)    14,  2  Vent.  28. 

13  May  V.  Brown.  S  B.  &  C.  113,  10 
E.  C.  L.  24,  4  Dowl.  &  R.  670,  2  L. 
J.  K.  B.  212. 

l^Barr  r.  Moore,  87  Pa.  St.  385, 
30  Am.  Rep.  367. 

15  Ivey  V.  Pioneer  Sav.,  etc.,  Co., 
113  Ala.  349,  21  So.  531. 

16  Turner  v.  Hearst,  115  Cal.  394, 
47  Pae.  ]29. 


140 


PRIVILEGES,     EXEMPTIONS,     DISABILITIES. 


L§  85 


had  been  transported  for  cnibe/.zlement  of  the  partnershiji  funds," 
or  -with  the  flagrant  violation  of  his  duties  as  an  attorney/*  or  with 
failing  to  pay  over  to  a  client  money  he  had  received  for  her.^® 

It  has  been  held  that  charging  an  attorney  with  ignorance  in  a 
particular  case  is  not  actionable  pe.r  se}^  But  words  which  impute 
want  of  integrity  are  actionable  although  used  only  as  to  a  single 
transaction.^  So,  also,  are  words  which,  although  used  in  respect 
to  a  particular  case,  are  general,  and  applicable  to  the  relations 
between  the  attorney  and  all  his  clients.^ 

§  85.  Nonactionable  Language.  —  A  reference  to  a  pam- 
phlet written  by  a  lawyer,  as  '^the  effusion  of  a  crank,"  is  not  in 
itself  actionable.^ 

A  publication  is  not  injurious  to  an  attorney,  as  such,  which 
states  that  he  was  publicly  whipped  by  a  former  female  client 
whom  he  had  previously  insulted.*  An  article  stating  that  an  at- 
torney was  illegally  put  into  jail  is  not  libelous  as  reflecting  upon 
his  professional  conduct,  capacity  or  character.^ 

It  has  been  held  that  it  is  not  actionable  per  se  to  say  of  a  law- 
yer, "He  is  a  runaway — he  broke  out  of  jail  in  ]^ew  England  and 
Hed  from  justice."  ^ 


17  Jones  r.  Stevens.  11  Price 
(Eng.)   235,  25  Rev.  Rep.  714. 

18  Hoey  V.  Fletclicr.  39  Fla.  325.  22 
So.   716. 

19  Marx  r.  Tress  Pub.  Co.,  134  N. 
Y.  56],  31  N.  E.  918. 

20  Foot  V.  Brown.  8  Johns.  (\.  Y.) 
64.  Compare  Ludwifj  v.  Cramer,  53 
Wis.  193.  10  X.  W.  SI. 

l(;arr  r.  Seidcn.  C.  I'.arh.  41(1.  re- 
versed on   otlier  grounds  4   N.   Y.  91. 

Spisliop  /;.  Latimer.  4  L.  T.  N.  S. 
(Eng.)   775. 

8  Walker  r.  'Iribunc  Co.,  29  Fed. 
827. 

4Slierin  r.  Eastwood.  27  S.  I).  312, 
]:'A  \.  W.  2S7.  wliercin  tlie  couit 
said:  "The  only  matter  which,  e\(ii 
l»y  implication,  could  lie  held  1o 
eliai';.'c   ;i  jipcl  hi  lit    with    ni]|)r()fessi(iii!i  1 


conduct,  is  the  statement  that  at 
one  time  when  his  assailant  had  visit- 
ed him  as  a  client,  he  had  insulted 
her.  There  was  no  pleading  by  way 
of  innuendo,  nor  any  attempt  by 
])roof  to  show  that  by  tlie  use  of  the 
word  'insult'  it  was  intended  and 
would  l)e  understood  as  setting  fortli 
any  criminal  or  even  unchaste  con- 
duct upon  the  part  of  the  appcdlant. 
'J'here  might  have  been  many  causes 
which  would  lead  the  appellant  to 
to  have  made  charges  in  the  iiatuio 
of  insults  against  a  client  \\hich  in 
no  inanner  would  r(>liect  U]n)n  his 
professional  conduct  as  an  attorney."' 

5  Hughes    V.    New     N'oik     Evening 

i'ost  Co.,  1 15  .Ai)p.  Div.  (ii  1,  inn  \. 

V.   S.    9S2. 

6  ( liKidiiow   r.   Tappaii.    1    ()hi(i   (11. 


§    85]  PEIVILEGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES.  141 

The  words,  "lie  is  crazy ;  he  is  top-heavy ;  he  has  a  soft  spot  in 
his  head,"  when  spoken  of  a  lawyer,  have  heen  held  to  he  mere 
vituperation  and  abuse,  without  reference  to  his  professional  char- 
acter, and  not  actionable  per  se.''  A  charge  of  lewdness,  although 
alleged  to  concern  an  attorney  in  his  professional  capacity,  does 
not  impute  professional  misconduct.* 

A  statement  that  an  attorney  "has  moved  his  office  up  to  his 
house  to  save  expense"  is  not  actionable  per  se.^  Lord  Kenyon 
said  that  it  was  not  actionable  to  say  of  an  attorney:  "I  have 
taken  out  a  judge's  warrant  to  tax  Phillips's  bill ;  I'll  bring  him 
to  book  and  shall  have  him  struck  off  the  roll."  His  lordship  added, 
"Had  the  words  been,  'He  deserves  to  be  struck  off  the  roll,"  they 
would  have  been  actionable."  ^° 

It  has  also  been  held  that  it  was  not  actionable  per  se  to  speak 
of  a  solicitor  as  follov.'s :  "Have  you  heard  about  our  neighbor 
along  here  ?  They  tell  me  he  has  gone  for  thousands  instead  of 
hundreds  this  time.  .     .     Have  you  heard  anything  about  Mr. 

Dauncey  ?  It  seems  to  be  a  worse  job  than  the  other  was.  I  was 
putting  up  a  bell  in  Miss  Allen's  shop,  and  Miss  Allen  told  me  Mr. 
Dauncey  has  lost  thousands."  ^^  So,  it  seems,  it  is  not  actionable 
per  se  to  charge  an  attorney  with  having  defrauded  his  creditors, ^^ 
or  with  being  slow  in  the  payment  of  his  bills, ^^  or  to  charge  him 

7  Cioldrick  r.  Levy,  8  Ohio  Dec.  keep  his  promises,  has  been  held,  by 
(Reprint)    3 40,  6  Cine.  L.  Bui.  20.  a    closely    divided    court,    not    to    be 

8  Powers  V.  Gary,  64  Me.  9.  actionable  per  se  as   concerning  him 

9  Stewart  v.  Minnesota  Tribune  Co.,  in  his  profession.  McDermott  r. 
40  Minn.  101,  41  X.  W.  457,  12  Am.  Union  Credit  Co.  76  Minn.  84,  78  X. 
St.  Rep.  696.  W.     967,     79     X.     W.     673,     wherein 

IC  Pliillips  r.  Jansen,  2  Esp.   (Eng.)  Mitchell,     J.,     said:      "As     a     publi- 

024.  cation  addressed  to  retail  dealers,  it 

11  Dauncey  r.  HoUoway  [1901]  2  presumably,  if  not  neecessarily,  re- 
K.  B.    (Eng.)    441.  ferred  to  his  habit   in  the  matter  of 

12  Dorley  v.  Roberts,  3  Bing.  X.  paying  his  personal  bills.  The  head 
Cas.  83.5.  32  E.  C.  L.  346,  5  Scott  40,  and  front  of  the  publication  is  that 
3  Hodges  154,  0  L.  ,T.  C.  PI.  279.  plaintiff    is    slow    in    the    payment   of 

13  A  reference,  in  a  book  published  his  bills,  but  not  to  the  extent  that 
by  a  commercial  agency,  to  an  at-  his  promises  are  not  kept,  or  that  it 
torney  as  slow  in  the  payment  of  his  iy  necessary  to  place  a  claim  in  the 
bills,  which  does  not  charge  that  he  hands  of  a  collector,  or  to  put  into 
is  dishonest  or  insolvent  or  does  not  judgment,    in    order    to     secure     pay- 


142 


PKIVII-EGES,    EXEMPTIONS,    DISABILITIES. 


.§  S5 


with  a  delay  of  fifteen  years  in  delivering  a  bill  for  services  ren- 
dered to  a  testator.^* 

In  a  case  vlierein  it  appeared  that  the  defendant  had  told  a  })er- 
soii  who  had  employed  the  plaintiff  as  a  solicitor,  that  the  lacter 
was  a  dirty  man  and  that  if  he,  the  client,  had  an  honorable  man 
to  work  for  him  he  might  win  his  case,  the  conrt  was  inclined  to 
think  that  the  words  spoken  \vere  not  actionable  withont  an 
innuendo.^* 

A  jmblication  charging  that  an  attorney's  wife  had  died  nnder 
circumstances  which  had  aronsed  her  husband's  suspicion  that  she 
had  caused  her  own  death  by  procuring  a  miscarriage  upon  her 
person,  is  not  a  charge  against  the  professional  character  of  the 
plaintiff,  and  does  not,  in  the  view  of  the  law,  injure  him  as  a 
lawver.^^ 


inent,  or  that  he  ever  disputes  his 
hills.  An  attorney,  like  any  other 
man,  may  for  various  reasons  be 
slow,  to  the  extent  of  not  paying  his 
personal  bills  promptly,  weekly  or 
monthly,  and  yet  be  not  only  honest 
and  solvent,  but  also  entirely  prom.pt 
in  the  performance  of  his  profession- 
al duties,  and  in  accounting  for  and 
paying  over  all  property  or  money  of 
his  clients  which  may  come  .  .co  his 
hands.  It  is  possible  that  anything 
published  in  disparagement,  however 
slight,  of  a  person  as  an  individual 
may  incidentally  affect  him  somewhat 
in  his  business  or  profession :  but  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  tliat  the 
words  are  actionable,  per  ,sp,  as  pub- 
lished of  and  concerning  him  in  re- 
lation to  his  jjrofession  or  business. 
Any  such  rule  would  open  tlie  door 
for  a  flood  of  vexatious  litigation. 
'l"o  be  actifMKiliIc  on  that  ground 
alone,  the  jjuldicat  ion  must  be  sucli 
as  would  naturally  and  directly  aflect 
him  prejudicially  in  his  profession  or 
busincas.     Hence    our    opinion  is  that 


if  the  publication  in  this  case  is, 
per  se,  actionable  under  the  alle- 
gation of  the  complaint,  it  must  be 
because  it  is  actionable  per  se  when 
published  of  a  person  as  an  indi- 
vidual, without  reference  to  his 
particular  profession  or  business." 
Collins,  J.,  said:  "I  concur  in  the 
result,  but  do  not  feel  quite  prepared 
to  say  that  printed  matter  in  which 
a  practicing  attorney  is  chargisl  with 
being  slow  in  the  payment  of  his 
debts  does  not  tend  to  injure  him  in 
his  professional  standing,  and  lower 
him  in  that  confidence  of  the  com- 
munity which  every  attorney  must 
have,  to  succeed.  My  impression  is 
decidedly  to  the  contrary." 

14  Reeves  v.  Templar,  2  Jur.  (Eng.) 
l."57  (decided  under  the  rule  tliat 
ambiguous  words  are  to  be  construct! 
itiitiori  sensu ) . 

16 '|'ol)iii  i\  (lannoii.  '.lA  \'i)\a 
Scotia  !). 

16  Wcllmaii  r.  Sun  I'linting,  etc., 
Co.,  60  Hun  331,  21  >\.  V.  S.  577. 


CHAPTER    V. 

ASSIGNMENT  OF  COUNSEL  BY  THE  COURT— AMICUS  CURI^. 

Assif/iinicnt  of  Counsel  by  the  Court. 

§  86.  Assignment  of  Counsel  for  Poor  Persons  in  Civil  Cases. 

87.  In  Criminal  Cases. 

88.  Appointment  of  Counsel  for  Absentees. 

Amicus  Curicc. 

89.  Cenerally. 

90.  Status  of  Amici  Curice. 

91.  Power  and  Functions. 

Assigntncnt  of  Counsel  by  the  Court. 

§  86,  Assignment  of  Counsel  for  Poor  Persons  in  Civil 
Cases.  —  In  many  jurisdictions  poor  persons  are  permitted  to  in- 
stitute civil  proceeding's  in  forma  pauperis^  and  in  such  cases, 
either  by  virtue  of  statute  or  rule  of  court,  it  is  customary  to  as- 
sign counsel  to  represent  theui.^     When  a  lawyer  takes  his  license 

lA    Federal   fitatitte    provides   that  he  seeks  by  such  suit  or  action,  and 

"any    citizen    of    the    United    States,  setting  forth  briefly  the  nature  of  his 

entitled    to    commence    any    suit    or  alleged  cause  of  action."     Act  of  July 

action    in    any    court    of    the    United  20,   1892.  §   1    (2  Fed.  St.  Ann.  294). 

States,  may  commence  and  prosecute  2  Lewis  v.  Kennett,  3  Euss.    (Eng. ) 

to  conclusion  any  such  suit  or  action  46(5;     Wclford     r.     Daniell,     9     Sim. 

without  being  required  to  prepay  fees  (Eng.)   652;  Whelan  i\  Manhattan  R. 

or    costs,    or    give    security    therefor  Co.    86    Fed.   219;    Webb   v.   Baird,    0 

before  or  after  bringing  suit  or  action,  Ind.   13;   Kerr  t-.  State,  35  Ind.  288; 

upon  filing  in  said  court  a  statement  Wright   v.   McLarinan,   92   Ind.    103; 

under  oath,  in   writing,  that,  because  Daus  v.  Nussberger,  25  App,  Div.  185, 

of   his   poverty,   he   is   unable   to  pay  49  N.  Y.  S.  291 ;   House  v.  Whitis,  5 

the  costs  of  said  suit  or  action  which  Baxt.      (Tenn.)      690;      Dempsey      v. 

lie  is  about  to  commence,  or  to  give  Lawrence,  Gilmer    (Va. )    333. 

security    for    the   same,    and    that    lie  The  Federal  Statute  on  this  subject 

believes  he  is  entitled   to  the  redress  provides  tliat  "the  court  may  request 

143 


144 


ASSIGNMENT   OF   COUNSEL   BV   THE    COURT. 


[§  87 


he  takes  it  burdened  with  certain  honorary  obligations.  He  is  a 
sworn  minister  of  justice,  and  when  commanded  by  the  court  he 
cannot  withhold  his  services  in  cases  prosecuted  in  forma  pau- 
peris.^ The  court  is  not  obliged  to  assign  to  a  party  the  attorney 
desigTiated  by  him ;  *  nor,  unless  it  is  provided  for  by  statute,  is 
there  any  legal  duty  resting  on  the  court  to  appoint  counsel  for 


poor  persons  in  civil  cases 


.  5 


§  87.  In  Criminal  Cases.  —  AVhere  it  appears  that  persons 
charged  with  the  commission  of  a  crime  are  destitute,  the  univer- 
sal practice  is  for  the  court  to  appoint  counsel  for  them.  In  sev- 
eral states  this  matter  is  covered  by  statute.^     In  the  absence  of 


any  attorney  of  the  court  to  represent 
such  poor  person,  if  it  deems  the 
cause  worthy  of  a  trial,  and  may  dis- 
miss any  sucli  cause  so  brought 
under  this  act  if  it  be  made  to  ap- 
pear that  the  allegation  of  poverty  is 
untrue,  or  if  said  court  be  satisfied 
that  the  alleged  cause  of  action  is 
frivolous  or  malicious."  Act  of  July 
20,  ]892,  §4(2  Fed.  St.  Ann.  294). 
294.) 

The  New  York  Code  provides  tliat 
a  poor  person,  whether  an  adult  or 
infant,  not  being  of  ability  to  sue, 
who  alleges  that  he  has  a  cause  of 
action  against  another  person,  may 
apply  by  petition  to  the  court  in 
which  the  action  is  pending,  or  in 
which  it  is  intended  to  be  brought, 
for  leave  to  j)r()secute  as  n  poor 
person,  and  to  have  an  attorney  and 
ccunsel  assigned  to  conduct  liis 
action.     §  4.")8  X.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro. 

And  tliat  a  defendant  in  an  action 
involving  liis  right,  title,  or  interest 
in  r)r  to  real  or  personal  property. 
may  pctitinn  (lie  ronit  in  wliicii  tlic 
action  is  |iriii|iiig  fur  lc;i\c  Id  drtrinl 
till-  action  as  a  poDr  inTsun.  mnl  In 
liave     an     attornrv     aiid     ((innscl     as- 


signed to  conduct  his  defense.     §  46.3 
N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro. 

3  House  V.  Whitis,  5  Baxt.  (Tenn.) 
690. 

4  Helmprecht  r.  Bowen,  87  Hun 
302,  34  N.  Y.  S.  1141. 

In  Harris  v.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co., 
59  Hun  625  mem.,  20  Civ.  Pro.  192, 
13  N.  Y.  S.  718,  Van  Brunt,  P.  .J.. 
said:  "The  court  should  not  assign 
at:  counsel  the  attorney  making  the 
application,  except  in  exceptional 
cases,  and  then  only  where  it  clearly 
appears  that  the  party  seeking  to 
sue  as  a  poor  person  knows  that  the 
counsel  assigned  is  bound  to  act  in 
the  action  without  compensation,  and 
where  the  counsel  certifies  to  the 
court  that  he  will  so  act.  and  that  no 
cluirge  or  claim  for  counsel  fees  by 
anybody  will  he  made.  In  most  cases, 
liowever,  in  order  to  prevent  abuses, 
a  person  entirely  disconnected  witii 
the  proceeding  sliould  be  a])pointed, 
who  will  see  tliat  improper  \i.se  is  not 
made  of  the  privilege  granted." 

s  Lealiy  r.  Dunlap,  6  Colo.  552. 

6  SIdtiitorii  liei/iildtion. — Tlie  ap- 
piiiiit  iiicnt  by  cnuils  of  attorneys  to 
(h:fcnd     indigent    persons    accused    of 


§  87] 


assignme:<t  of  counsel  by  the  court. 


14: 


such  regulation,  however,  there  is  no  doubt  tliat  the  court,  even 
though  there  is  no  rule  to  that  effect,  may  assign  counsel  for  the 
defense  of  poor  prisoners.'''  And  it  is  the  dutv  of  counsel  so  desig- 
nated to  give  their  professional  assistance,^  "when  not  inconsistent 
with  their  duties  to  others,^  though  the  weight  of  authority  is  to 
the  efiect  tliat  a  statute  requiring  counsel  to  give  their  services 
without   couipensation    is   unconstitutional.^"      Wliere   the   assign- 


crime,  wlio  are  without  counsel  and 
uitliout  the  means  of  employing  legal 
assistance,  is  not,  properly  speaking, 
the  exercise  of  a  fundamental  right 
or  power  inherent  in  the  court,  but 
such  autliority  is  implied  from  the 
jurisdiction  and  powers  expressly 
conferred,  and  functions  and  duties 
imposed,  and  the  general  statutes  and 
policy  of  the  state  providing  for  the 
necessities  of  the  poor,  which  reason- 
ably include  a  fair  opportunity  to 
protect  their  rights  as  litigants  in 
courts  of  justice.  As  the  power  to 
mai<e  such  appointment  emanates 
directly  or  indirectly  from  the  legis- 
lature, it  follows  that  its  exercise  is 
subject  to  the  regulation  and  control 
of  that  department.  Clay  County  v. 
McGregor,  171  Ind.  G34,  17  Ann.  Cas. 
333,   87   N.   E.   1. 

7  California. — Rowe  v.  Yulia  Coun- 
ty, 17  Cal.  Gl. 

/•7oHda.— Cutts  v.  State,  54  Fla. 
21,  45  So.  491. 

Illinois. — Wise  v.  Hamilton  County, 
19   111.  78. 

Indiana. — TIendryx  t\  State,  130 
Ind.  265,  29  X.  E.  1131;  Cross  v. 
State,  132  Ind.  65,  31  N.  E.  473. 

loira. — Hall  r.  Washington  County, 
2  Greene  473. 

Montana. — Johnston  v.  Lewis,  etc. 
County,  2  Mont.  159. 

Neio  York. — §  308  Code  of  Crim. 
Pro. 

Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 10. 


rcnnfiijlvania. — Wayne  County  v. 
Waller,  90  Pa.  St.  99,  35  Am.  Hep. 
630. 

Texas. — Pennington  v.  State,  13 
Tex.   App.  44. 

Virginia. — Early  r.  Com.,  86  Va. 
921,    11    S.    E.   795. 

On  Appeal. — The  Supreme  Court  has 
no  authority  to  appoint  an  attorney 
to  prosecute  an  appeal  for  a  poor 
person,  the  attorney  appointed  by  the 
court  below  having  full  authority  to 
do  so.     Stout  r.  State,  90  Ind.  1. 

Code  Ala.  1907,  §  7839,  providing 
that  where  accused,  indicted  for  a  caj)- 
ital  offense,  is  unable  to  employ  coun- 
sel, the  court  must  appoint  counsel, 
does  not  authorize  tlie  trial  court  to 
appoint  counsel  in  the  Supreme  Court 
or  in  the  Appellate  Court.  Camp- 
bell V.  State,    (Ala.)    62  So.  57. 

8  Cutts  t7.  State,  54  Fla.  21,  45  So. 
491. 

^Mandamus  will  not  lie  to  compel 
the  circuit  judge  to  appoint  an  at- 
torney for  a  poor  person  where  a 
motion  for  such  appointment  is  pend- 
ing, and  there  is  no  such  delay  in  de- 
ciding the  same  as  to  raise  the  infer- 
ence of  a  refusal  to  decide  it.  Baker 
r.  State,  86  Wis.  474,  56  X.  W.  1088. 

9  Rowe  V.  Yuba  County,  17  Cal  61. 

10  Blythe  v.  State.  4  Ind.  525  ;  Webl) 
v.  Baird,  6  Ind.  13;  Howard  County 
r.  Pollard,  153  Ind.  371.  55  X.  E. 
87;    Clay    County    r.    McGregor,    171 


146 


ASSIGNMENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COUUT. 


[§  87 


ment  of  counsel  is  provided  for  bv  statute  it  is  error  to  refuse 
counsel  to  a  poor  person,  charged  with  crime,  who  requests  such 
assistance ;  ^^  but  it  is  not  error  to  fail  to  assign  counsel  where  no 
request  therefor  is  niade.^^  Xor  can  the  courts  require  the  accused 
to  secure  counsel  or  impose  counsel  upon  him,  unless  he  requests 
the  court  so  to  do.^^  The  defendant  must  accept  the  services  of  any 
reputable  attorney  whom  the  court,  in  its  discretion,  may  see  fit 
to  appoint,  unless,  of  course,  it  is  otherwise  provided  by  statute.^* 
The  number  of  counsel  who  shall  be  appointed  to  defend  an  indi- 
gent prisoner,  unless  limited  by  statute,  rests  in  the  judicial  dis- 
cretion of  the  court, ^^  and  an  appellate  court  will  not  interfere  with 


Ind.  634,  17  Ann.  Cas.  333,  87  N.  W. 
1 :  Knight  v.  Board  of  Com'rs  of 
Clay  County,  (Ind.)  101  N.  E.  1010; 
Dane  County  v.  Smith.  13  Wis.  585, 
80  Am.  Dec.  754.  Contra,  Brown 
V.  Warren  County,  (la.)  135  N. 
W.  4.  42  L.R.A.(N.S.)  527;  Presby 
V.  Klickitat  County.  5  Wash.  329,  31 
Pac.  876. 

llHendryx  v.  State.  130  Ind.  2G5, 
29  X.  E.  1131. 

12  State  V.  De  Serrant,  33  La.  Ann. 
979;  State  v.  Vianna,  37  La.  Ann. 
606;  State  v.  Whitesides,  49  La.  Ann. 
3.52,  21  So.  540;  State  v.  Rollins,  50 
La.  Ann.  925,  24  So.  664;  People  v. 
Cook,  45  Hun  34,  9  X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
412;  Gutierez  v.  State.  (Te\.)  47  S. 
W.  372. 

A  failure  to  apply  for  tlie  assign- 
ment of  counsel  indicates  a  waiver 
of  the  right  to  have  the  assistance 
of  counseL  State  v.  Raney,  63  X.  J. 
L.   363.  43  Atl.  677. 

In  Cutts  V.  State,  54  Kla.  21,  45 
So.  491,  the  court  said:  "It  lias  been 
the  general  practice  in  trial  courts 
in  this  state,  when  a  party  eliarged 
witii  felony  has  been  ln-onglit  to  tlie 
bar  for  arraignment,  fu  iiii|iiin'  of  (lie 
accused    wlieth<T    be    bad    ((iiiiisel     to 


represent  him,  and  if  upon  inquiry 
it  developed  that  he  had  no  attorney 
and  was  unable  to  employ  one,  to  ask 
the  accused  whether  he  desired  one 
to  represent  him.  If  he  signified  his 
desire  to  be  represented  by  counsel, 
then  it  has  been  the  practice  for  the 
trial  judge  to  appoint  some  attorney 
to  represent  the  accused.  Tiiis  prac- 
tice is  in  accord  with  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  section  2  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  and  section  3969  of  tlie  Gener- 
al Statutes  of  1906." 

13  Schwartz  r.  State,  (Miss.)  GO  So. 
732 ;  Dietz  v.  State,  149  Wis.  462,  Ann. 
Cas.  1913C  732,  136  N.  W.  166. 

H  Andersen  v.  Treat,  172  U.  S.  24, 
19  S.  Ct.  67,  43  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  351; 
Burton  r.  State,  75  Ind.  477;  People 
V.  Fuller,  35  Misc.  189.  15  X.  Y.  Crim. 
473,  71  X.  Y.  S.  487;  Baker  v.  State, 
86   Wis.  474  note,  56  X.  W.  1088. 

Tlie  Sii|)reme  Court  will  not  assign, 
as  counsel,  one  wlio  has  been  admitted 
to  practice  only  in  the  Common  Pleas. 
Commonwealth  r.  Knai)p,  9  Pick. 
(Mass.)    496,  20  Am.   Dec.  49 L 

15  (Jordan  v.  Dearborn  County,  52 
hui.  322;  Keyes  v.  State,  122  Ind. 
527,  23  N.  E.'l097;  People  v.  Fitch, 
51   N.  Y.  S.  683;  People  r.  lleiselbetz, 


§§    88,    89]    ASSIGNMENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COURT.  147 

the  exercise  of  such  discretion  unless  it  clearly  appears  that  the 
discretion  was  so  abused  as  to  result  in  an  injustice  to  the  ac- 
cused.^® 

§  88.  Appointment  of  Counsel  for  Absentees.  —  In  some 
jurisdictions,  under  statutory  authority,  counsel  arc  appointed  for 
nonresident  defendants  who,  because  of  having  property  within 
the  jurisdiction,  were  properly  sued  therein,  and  who  failed  to  ap- 
pear in  answer  to  such  suit.^' 

Thus  the  Louisiana  Civil  Code  provides  that  "when  a  person 
possessed  of  either  movable  or  immovable  property  within  this 
state  shall  be  absent,  or  shall  reside  out  of  the  state,  without  hav- 
ing appointed  somebody  to  take  care  of  his  estate,  or  when  the  \)0y- 
son  thus  appointed  dies,  or  is  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  con- 
tinue to  administer  that  estate,  then  and  in  that  ease,  the  judge  of 
the  place  where  that  estate  is  situated  shall  appoint  a  curator  to 
administer  the  same."  ^*  Attorneys  so  appointed  are  merely  stat- 
utory appointees,  their  powers,  rights,  duties,  and  liabilities  are 
usually  fixed  by  the  statute,  or  possibly  by  rule  or  order  of  court. 
In  all  such  cases  the  local  laws  and  rules  of  court  must  be  con- 
sulted. 

Atyiicus  Cur  ice. 

§  89.  Generally. — The  term  amicus  cur  ice  implies  the 
friendly  intervention  of  counsel  to  remind  the  court  of  some  matter 
of  law  which  might  otherwise  escape  its  notice,  and  in  regard  to 
w'hich  it  might  go  wrong.  Such  an  intervention  is  granted,  not  as 
a  matter  of  right,  but  of  privilege,  and  the  privilege  ends  when  the 

26  Misc.   TOO,  55  N.  Y.  S.  4.  affirmed  young    attorneys     appointed    by    the 

30   App.    Div.    199,   51    N.   Y.   S.   685.  court  wlien  tliree  experienced  lawyers 

16  Fambles  v.  State,  97  Ga.  625,  25  represented  the  prosecution. 

S.   E.   365;    Keyes   c.   State,   122   Ind.  "See    generally     Henry    v.    Black- 

527.   23  N.   E.   1097; Brown   v.   State,  burn,  32  Ark.  445;  Jordon  v.  Giblin, 

52   Tex.    Crim.   267,    106   S.   W.   368;  12  Cal.  100;   Brown  v.  Early,  2  Duv. 

State  V.  Briggs,  58  W.  Va.  291,  52  S.  (Ky.)    369;    Allen   v.   Brown,  4   Met. 

E.    218.      But    see   People   c.    Blevins,  (Ky.)   342;  Christy  v.  Garrity,  (Ky.) 

251    111.    381,    Ann.    Cas.    1912C    451,  22  S.  W.  158;  Garvey  r.  State,  (Tex.) 

96  N.  E.  214,  where  it  was  held  error  8S  S.  W.  873. 

to  alloAv  accused  to  be  defended  by  two  18  Civ.  Code  La.    1900,  art.  47. 


148 


ASSIGNMENT  OF   COU^'SEL  BY  THE   COURT. 


[§  90 


suggestion  has  been  inade.^^  Under  the  practice  in  some  jurisdic- 
tions, an  amicus  curice  may  be  appointed  by  the  court  to  aid  in  the 
performance  of  certain  labors  and  examinations  which  are  neces- 
sary to  guide  the  court  to  a  proper  conclusion  upon  matters  pend- 
ing before  it.  In  such  cases  an  amicus  curiae  is  an  officer  of  court 
for  the  purposes  of  his  appointment,  and  may  be  compensated  for 
his  services.^" 

§  90.  Status  of  Amici  Curiae.  —  An  attorney  may  be  heard, 
or  not,  as  amicus  curicv,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court,  concerning 
a  proceeding  in  which  he  is  not  counsel.^ 

An  amicus  curiw  is  heard  only  by  the  leave  and  for  the  assist- 
ance of  the  court,  and  upon  a  case  already  before  it.^  Should  the 
court  so  desire,  it  may,  of  course,  request  an  attorney  to  appear 
before  it  as  amicus  curice.^  The  office  of  a  friend  of  the  court  is 
restricted  to  making  suggestions  as  to  questions  apparent  upon  the 
record,  or  matters  of  practice  presenting  themselves  for  determi- 


19  Birmingham  Loan,  etc.  Co.  v. 
Anniston  First  Nat.  Bank,  100  Ala. 
249,  1.3  So.  945,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  45; 
Hamlin  v.  Perticuler  Baptist  Meeting 
House,  103  Me.  343,  69  Atl.  315;  Taft 
t>.  Northern  Transp.  Co.,  56  X.  H. 
414;  Com.  v.  Collom,  1  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
542. 

20  In  re  St.  Louis  Institute,  27  Mo. 
App.   633. 

t'nder  Code  la.,  §  325,  providing 
that  proceedings  to  remove  an  attor- 
ney may  be  commenced  by  direction  of 
the  court,  who  must  direct  some  at- 
torney to  draw  up  the  accusation, 
an  attorney  appointed  to  prose- 
cute disbarment  proceedings  may 
recover  from  tiic  county  a  reason - 
al'le  compensation  for  his  serv- 
ices tliough  tlicre  is  no  statutory 
[irovision  for  compensation.  Hyatt 
r.  Hamilton  County,  ]21  la.  292,  90 
X.  W.  855,  100  Am.  St.  Bep.  354.  63 
],.!!. A.    614,  rc-Kcrsing  90   X.    W.   508. 


Where  a  judge,  acting  under  the 
provisions  of  the  code,  appoints  an 
attorney  to  see  that  ex  parte  proceed- 
ings for  a  divorce  are  being  conducted 
upon  legal  grounds,  the  judge  has  no 
power  to  order  the  payment  of  such 
attorney's  fees.  Creamer  v.  Creamer, 
30   Ga.  618. 

1  Farmer's  Union  Ditch  Co.  v.  Rio 
Grande  Canal  Co.,  37  Colo.  512,  86 
Pac.  1042;  Little  v.  Thompson,  24 
Ind.  146;  per  Lamm,  J.  in  Ex  p.  Brock- 
man,  233  Mo.  135,  134  S.  W.  977; 
State  V.  JefTerson  Iron  Co.,  60  Tex. 
312;  Ex  p.  Yeager,  11  Gratt.  (Va.) 
055. 

2  Birmingham  Loan,  etc.  Co.  v. 
Anniston  First  Xat.  Bank,  100  Ala. 
249,  13  So.  945,  49  Am.  St.  Rep.  45; 
Martin   v.   Tapley,  119  Mass.   116. 

3  Ex  p.  Randolph,  2  Brock.  461, 
20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,558;  In  re  St. 
I.oiiis,  ctr..  Science.  27  Mo.  App.  633; 
In   re   .Mwiiima,  2  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  592. 


§   90] 


ASSIGNAIENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COURT. 


149 


nation  in  the  course  of  proceedings  in  open  court,*  Bnt  the  court 
can  only  do  that  which  it  could  have  done  without  such  advice  or 
aid.5 

It  is  Avithin  the  power  of  the  court  to  listen  to  the  representa- 
tions, and  to  hear  the  evidence,  of  those  appearing  in  a  cause  as 
amici  curice  claiming  that  such  cause  is  a  collusive  or  fictitious 
proceeding.®  So  the  court  may  institute  an  inquiry  at  the  sugges- 
tion of  its  amicus  curice,  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether 
it  has  jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  a  party  necessary  to  enable 
it  to  render  a  judgment  by  default,'  or  dismiss  an  action  for  want 
of  prosecution/  or  set  aside  letters  of  administration  which  have 
been  erroneously  issued.^     So  amici  curice  may  be  allowed  to  file 


4  Jones  V.  Jefferson,  66  Tex.  576,  1 
S  W.  903;  see  also  Haley  v.  Eureka 
County  Bank,  21  Nev.  127,  26  Pac. 
64,  12  L.R.A.  815. 

If  a  judge  be  doubtful  or  mistaken 
as  to  a  matter  of  law,  a  stander-by 
may  inform  the  court,  as  amicus 
cnrice.  Haley  v.  Eureka  County  Bank, 
21  Nev.  127,  26  Pac.  64,  12  L.R.A.  815. 

A  suggestion  to  the  court  tliat  one 
whose  trial  is  about  to  commence  has 
not  pleaded  formally  to  the  informa- 
tion, is  a  proper  suggestion  to  be  made 
1)V  any  member  of  the  bar  as  amicus 
curice.  People  v.  Gibbs,  70  Mich.  425, 
38  N.  W.  257. 

Counsel,  as  amicus  curice,  may  re- 
mind the  court  of  a  rule  which  it  is 
in  danger  of  violating,  and  then  it  is 
for  the  court  to  take  such  action  as  it 
may  think  proper  to  do.  Taft  i\ 
Northern  Transp.   Co.  56  N.  H.  414. 

5  Andrews  V.  Beck,  23  Tex.  455; 
Moseby  v.  Burrow,  52  Tex.  396;  State 
V.  Jefferson  Iron  Co.,  60  Tex.  312. 

6  Sampson  r.  Highway  Com'rs,  115 
111.  App.  443 ;  Haley  v.  Eureka  Coun- 
ty Bank,  21  Nev.  127,  26  Pac.  64, 
12   L.R.A.   815;    Kelly   v.   New   York 


City  R.  Co.,  102  N.  Y.  S.  741;  State 
V.  Wilson,  2  Lea  (Tenn.)  204; 
Stearns  v.  Stearns,  10  Vt.  540. 

Attorneys  are  officers  of  the  court, 
and  it  is  not  only  their  right,  but 
their  duty,  if  they  know  or  have  rea- 
son to  believe  that  the  time  of  the 
court  is  being  taken  up  by  the  trial 
of  a  feigned  issue,  to  inform  the  judge 
of  the  fact,  whether  of  counsel  in  the 
case  or  not.  Ward  v.  Alsup,  100 
Tenn.  619,  46  S.  W.  573. 

7  Olsen  V.  California  Ins.  Co.,  11 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  371,  32  S.  W.  446. 
See  also  Jones  v.  Jefferson,  06  Tex. 
576,  1  S.  W.  903. 

The  appearance  of  a  defendant's 
attorney,  as  amicus  curice,  to  object 
to  the  sufficiency  of  service  of  a  writ, 
is  not  an  appearance  of  such  com- 
pany. International,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Moore,    (Tex.)    32  S.  W.  379. 

8  Tomkin  v.  Harris,  90  Cal.  201,  27 
Pac.  202. 

9  Jeffersonville  R.  Co.  v.  Swayne, 
26  Ind.  477;  Mallory  v.  Burlington, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  53  Kan.  557,  36  Pac. 
1059;  Gasque  v.  Moody,  12  Smed.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  153. 


150 


ASSIGNMENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COURT. 


[§  91 


brief s,^°  but  au  attorney  will  not  be  permitted  to  enter  a  cause  as 
amicus  curicB,  and  file  a  brief  and  petition  for  rehearing,  where 
the  attorneys  regularly  in  the  cause  neither  request  nor  consent  to 
such  interference."  Where  amicl  curiw  are  heard,  the  parties 
immediately  interested,  if  not  present,  should  be  informed  of  such 
interference,  and  given  time  to  resist  or  explain,  by  affidavit  or 


othe 


rwise. 


§  91.  Power  and  Functions.  —  An  amicus  curiw  may  ex- 
amine witnesses  and  make  an  argument  in  the  cause  wherein  he 
has  been  appointed,^^  though  he  has  no  right  to  take  an  exception 
to  the  ruling  of  the  court.^*     Nor  may  amici  curiw  move  to  dis- 


10  Robinson  v.  Lee,  122  Fed.  1010. 

Where  in  a  pending  case  applica- 
tion to  file  briefs  is  made  by  counsel 
not  employed  therein,  but  interested 
in  some  other  pending  case  involv- 
ing similar  questions,  and  consent  is 
given,  the  court  has  always  exer- 
cised great  liberality  in  permitting 
this  to  be  done.  It  is  entirely  within 
the  discretion  of  the  court  to  allow 
it  in  any  case  when  justified  by  the 
circumstances.  Northern  Securities 
Co.  V.  U.  S.,  191  U.  S.  555,  24  S.  Ct. 
119,  48  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  299  (filing 
not  allowed  in  this  case). 

"Charleston  v.  Cadle,  167  111.  G47, 
49  N.  E.   192. 

See  also  Nauer  v.  Thomas,  13  Al- 
len (Mass.)  572,  wherein  it  was 
said:  "When  competent  counsel  re- 
tained in  a  cause  wore  present  in 
court  i)repared  to  argue  it,  the  court 
declined  to  hear  otlier  counsel,  not 
retained  in  tlie  cause  before  the  court, 
or  in  any  other  cause  in  which  simi- 
lar (juestions  would  arise:  but  who 
expected  to  Iiave  a  similar  cause 
tlierr-after.  .  .  .  Nor  can  li<'  be 
lieani  as  aniiciis  curiir,  wlicic  (lie 
jjaitiea     arc     uttrndi'd     by     <()m|icleiit 


counsel,  and  the  court  do  not  ask  for 
furtlier  argument." 

12  In   re  Guernsey,  21   111.  443. 

13  In  re  Arszman,  40  Ind.  App.  218, 
81  N.  E.  680. 

^^  Alabama. — Birmingham  L.  &  A. 
Co.  V.  First  Nat.  Bank,  100  Ala.  249, 
13  So.  945,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  45. 

Indiana. — Campbell  V.  Swasey,  12 
Ind.  70;  Hust  r.  Conn,  12  Ind.  257: 
Buchanan  r.  Beard,  13  Ind.  471:  Dar- 
lington r.  Warner,  14  Ind.  449; 
Knight  r.  Low,  15  Ind.  374;  More- 
house r.  Potter,  15  Ind.  477;  Conrad 
V.  Johnson,  20  Ind.  421 ;  Irwin  r.  Ar- 
muth,  129  Ind.  340,  28  N.  E.  702;  In 
re  Arszman,  40  Ind.  App.  218,  81  N. 
E.  680. 

Masfiachusctts. — Martin  r.  Tapley, 
119  Rlass.  116. 

Prnnsi/lrania. — In  re  Stitzel,  221 
Pa.  St.  227,  70  Atl.  749,  18  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)   613. 

Texas. — Bass  r.  Fontleroy,  11  Tex. 
G98:  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Ander- 
son, 130  S.  W.  182. 

A  motion  made  by  an  attorney,  as 
a  friend  of  the  court,  cannot  be 
treated  as  the  exee])tion  of  the  par- 
ties.     Andrews  v.   Beck,  23  Tex.  455. 


§  91] 


ASSIGNMENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COURT. 


151 


miss  a  cause;  ^^  they  may,  of  course,  suggest  dismissal,  and  it  is 
then  discretionary  with  the  court  to  stay  the  proceedings,  make 
due  inquiry,  and,  if  the  facts  warrant  the  suggestion,  dismiss  the 


case. 


It  is  not  ordinarily  the  function  of  the  amicus  cwrioe  to  take 
upon  himself  the  management  of  a  cause.^"^  lie  has  no  control 
over  the  suit,  and  no  right  to  institute  proceedings  thereon;  ^'  he 
cannot  assume  the  function  of  a  party  to  the  action ;  ^^  thus  he  can- 
not file  a  demurrer,^''  or  bring  the  case  from  one  court  to  another 
by  appeal  or  writ  of  error. ^  In  some  instances,  however,  amici 
curiw  have  been  appointed  to  render  services  on  appeal;  thus  it 
has  been  held  that  on  appeal  from  an  order  of  the  county  commis- 


15  Piggott  V.  Kirkpatrick,  31  Ind. 
261 ;  Haley  v.  Euroka  County  Bank, 
21  Nev.  127,  26  Pac.  64,  12  L.R.A. 
815. 

16  Haley  v.  Eureka  County  Bank, 
21  Nev.  127,  26  Pac.  64,  12  L.R.A. 
815. 

17  Hamlin  v.  Pertlcular  Baptist 
Meeting  House,  10.3  Me.  343,  69  Atl. 
31.5:  Taft  v.  Northern  Transp.  Co..  56 
X.  H.  414;  Com.  r.  Collom,  1  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  542. 

18  Birmingham  Loan,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Anniston  First  Nat.  Bank,  100  Ala. 
249,  13  So.  945,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  45; 
Hamlin  v.  Pertlcular  Baptist  Meet- 
ing House,  103  Me.  343,  69  Atl.  315. 

19  In  re  Pina,  112  Cal.  14,  44  Pac. 
332;  In  re  McClellan,  27  S.  D.  100, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913C  1029,  129  X.  W.  1037. 

20  Ex  p.  Henderson.  84  Ala.  36,  4 
So.  284;  Hamlin  r.  Perticuler  Bap- 
tist Meeting  House,  103  Me.  343,  69 
Atl.  315. 

1  Alabama.  —  Birmingham  Loan, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Anniston  First  Xat.  Bank, 
100  Ala.  249.  13  So.  945,  46  Am.  St. 
Rep.  45. 

California. — In  re  Pina,  112  Cal. 
14,  44  Pac.  332. 


Indiana. — Irwin  v.  Armuth,  129 
Ind.  340,  28  N.  E.  702. 

Maine. — Hamlin  r.  Perticuler  Bap- 
tist Meeting  House,  103  Me.  343,  69 
Atl.  315. 

Massachusetts. — Martin  v.  Tapley, 
119  Mass.  116. 

Mississipp-i. — Miller  v.  Keith,  26 
Miss.  166. 

^^elc  York.—E.  B.  v.  E.  C.  B.,  8 
Abb.  Pr.  44,  28  Barb.  299. 

South  Dakota. — In  re  McClellan,  27 
S.  D.  109,  Ann.  Cas.  1913C  1029,  129 
X.  W.  1037. 

Texas. — Soutliern  R.  Co.  v.  Locke, 
84  S.  W.  1069. 

Virginia. — Dunlop  V.  Com.,  2  Call 
284;  Sayre  r.  Grymes,  1  Hen.  &  M. 
404. 

In  Miller  r.  Keith,  26  Miss.  166, 
it  was  said:  "We  are  of  opinion  that 
the  court  erred  in  not  following  the 
suggestions  thrown  out  by  the  appel- 
lant, as  amicus  curifr,  yet  this  error 
can  only  be  corrected  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  a  party  who  can  profit  by 
its  correction;  and  not  upon  the  ap- 
plication of  a  stranger,  or  one  whoso 
advice  has  not  been  properly  heeded." 


152  ASSIGNMENT    OF    COUNSEL    BY    THE    COURT.  [§    91 

sioiicrs  refusing  a  statutory  application  for  a  liquor  license,  the 
court  may  appoint  some  person  to  appear  and  defend  the  pro- 
ceeding as  an  amicus  curlce.^  On  the  other  hand,  in  declining  to 
follow  the  suggestions  of  amici  curiae,  the  California  Supreme 
Court  said:  ''We  have  not  acted  upon  the  suggestion  made  by 
counsel  api^earing  as  amici  curiae,  for  a  diminution  of  the  record, 
for  the  reason,  in  the  first  place,  that  we  do  not  deem  the  matters 
suggested  material,  and,  in  the  next  place,  we  do  not  recognize  any 
right  in  counsel  appearing  amicus  to  interfere  with  or  control  the 
condition  of  the  record  in  such  an  instance.  They  have  not  the 
rights  in  that  regard  of  an  adversary  in  the  litigation.  Nor  are 
the  liberties  of  counsel  thus  appearing  at  all  enlarged  in  this  in- 
stance because  the  court  below  assumed  to  appoint  them  as  amici 
curice  to  represent  it  on  the  appeal.  The  court  is  not  a  party  to 
the  appeal,  and  we  know  of  no  authority  for  the  making  of  such 
appointment  in  any  case.  To  the  extent  to  which  they  are  entitled 
to  be  heard  they  have  the  same  rights  without  such  appointment 
as  with  it.''  ^  An  amicus  curice  cannot  move  to  quash  an  inquisi- 
tion of  escheat.'*  Associate  judges  cannot  call  a  member  of  the 
bar,  as  amicus  curice,  to  the  bench  to  advise  them  how  to  conduct 
a  trial,  and  how  to  decide  questions  of  law^  that  may  arise,  and 
thus  take  the  place  of  the  law  judge.^ 

2  In  re  Arszman,  40  Ind.  App.  218,  4  Dunlop  V.  Com.,  2  Call  (Va.)  284. 
SI  X.  E.  680:  State  v.  Gorman,  ]71  5  Com.  v.  Collom,  1  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
Ind.  58,  85  N.  E.  703.                                   542. 

3  In  re  Pina,  112  Cal.  14,  44  Pac. 
332. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

rrjVILEGED   COMMUNICATIONS. 

In  General. 

02.  General  Rule. 

93.  Effect  of   Statutory  Provisions. 

94.  Origin  and  Eeason  of  Rule. 

95.  Construction  of  Rule. 

96.  Determining  whether  Privilege  Exists. 

97.  Enjoining  Secrecy. 

Application  of  Rule. 

98.  Generally. 

99.  Knowledge  Not  Derived  from  Client. 

100.  To  Whom  Communication  Must  Be  Made. 

101.  Relation  of  Attorney  and  Client  Must  Exist. 

102.  Communications    between    Attorney    and    Client's    Agent,    or    between 

Associate  Counsel. 

103.  Attorney  Acting  as  Scrivener  or  Notary  Public. 

104.  Communications  to  Prosecuting  Attorneys. 

105.  Communications  to  Attorney  Representing  Two  or  More  Persons. 

106.  Communications  to  Opponent's  Attorney. 

107.  Employment   in   Professional   Capacity. 

108.  Judicial  Proceedings  Unnecessary. 

109.  Payment  of  Retaining  Fee. 

110.  Subject-Matter  of  Communication. 

111.  Confidential   Character   of   Communication. 

112.  Time  of  Making  Communication. 

113.  Documents  and  Other  ^^■ritings. 

114.  Execution,  Delivery,  Appearance,  Existence,  and  Possession  of  Written 

Instruments. 

115.  Correspondence. 

Limitation  of  Rule. 

116.  Generally. 

117.  Communications  in  Presence  of,  or  Overheard  by.  Third  Persons. 

118.  Communications  to  Be  Made  Public,  or  Conveyed  to  Others. 

119.  Communications  in  Connection  witli  Preparation  of  Wills. 

153 


154 


PKl  V'lLEGED    C'0MMU:NICATI0NS. 


L^   i>:^ 


120.  Communications  in  Relation  to  Contemplated  Violation  of  Law. 

121.  Communications  in  Furtherance  of  P>audulent  Purpose. 

122.  Handling  of  Client's  Funds  or  Property. 

123.  Employment  and  Compensation  of  Attorney. 

124.  Address,  Identity,  and  Handwriting  of  Client. 

125.  Where  Attorney  Is  a  Party  to  Transaction. 

126.  Attorney  as   Subscribing   Witness. 

127.  Disclosure  for  Protection   of  Attorney. 

IVairer. 

128.  Who  May  Waive  the  Privilege. 

129.  Manner  of  Waiving  Privilege  Generally. 

130.  Waiver  by  Giving  Testimony. 

131.  Waiver  by  Becoming  State's  Witness. 

132.  Effect  of  Waiver  at  Former  Trial. 


In  General. 

§  92.  General  Rule.  —  The  general  rule  is  that  all  confiden- 
tial comnnuiications  between  an  attorney  and  his  client,  made  be- 
cause of  the  relationship  and  concerning  the  subject-matter  of  the 
attorney's  employment,  are  privileged  from  disclosure,^  even  for 


1  United  States. — Chirac  v.  Rei- 
nicker.  11  Wheat.  280,  G  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  474;  Murray  v.  Dowling,  1 
Cranch  (C.  C.)  151,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9.959;  Liggett  v.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381, 
4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  28(5. 

A  la  Lama. —Fnvish  r.  Gates,  29  Ala. 
254. 

Arkansas. — Andrews  v.  Simms,  33 
Ark.  771;  Fox  v.  Spears,  78  Ark.  71, 
93  S.  W.  560. 

f'alifrjrnia. — Hunter  r.  Watson,  12 
(al.  3()3,  73  Am.  Dec.  543;  Gallagher 
r.  Williamson,  23  Cal.  331,  83  Am. 
Hcc.  114;  Verdelli  v.  Gray's  Harbor 
Commercial  Co.,  115  Cal.  T)!?,  17  Pac 
364,  778. 

Delauare. — Bush  r.  McComb,  2 
Hoiist.  546. 


District  of  Columbia. — Elliott  v. 
U.  S.,  23  App.  Cas.  450. 

■Georgia. — Riley  r.  Johnston,  13  Ga. 
260;  Causey  r.  Wiley,  27  Ga.  444: 
Raefle  v.  Moore,  58  Ga.  94 ;  Young  r. 
State,  65  Ga.  525:  Philman  r.  Mar- 
shall, 103  Ga.  82,  29  S.  E.  598;  Rylee 
r.  Statham  Bank,  7  Ga.  App.  489,  67 
S.  E.  383. 

Idaho. — State  v.  Perry,  4  Idaho 
224,  38  Pac.  655. 

Illinois. — Granger  V.  Warrington. 
8  111.  299;  Thorp  v.  Goewey,  85  III. 
611  :  Oliver  v.  McDowell.  100  111.  App. 
45;  Holmes  r.  Horn,  120  111.  App. 
359. 

Indiana. — Jenkinson  r.  State.  5 
Bhnkf.  465;  Reed  V.  Smitli,  2  Ind. 
IGO. 


§   !^2J 


rKlVILKUEl)    COMML'MCATIONS. 


15; 


the  purposes  of  the  administration  of  justice,^  and  regardless  of 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  sought  to  put  them  in  evidence,^  unless 
the  client  himself  consents  to  such  disclosure  or  otherwise  waives 
his  privilege.'*  Whatever  facts,  therefore,  are  communicated  by 
a  client  to  his  counsel,  solely  on  account  of  the  relation,  such  coun- 
sel are  not  at  liberty,  even  if  they  wish,  to  disclose ;  *  nor  can  the 


Iowa. — Singer  i".  Sheldon,  56  la. 
354,  9  N.  W.  298. 

Kansas. — Wilkins  v.  Moore,  20 
Kan.  538;  Tays  v.  Carr,  37  Kan.  14], 
14  Pac.  456;  Michael  v.  Matson,  81 
Kan.  360,  105  Pac.  537. 

Kentucky. — Carter  r.  West,  93  Ky. 
211,  19  S.  W.  502. 

Lo^tisiana.— State  v.  Hazleton,  15 
La.  Ann.  72;  Holmes  v.  Barbin,  15 
La.  Ann.  553;  Morris  v.  Cain,  39  La. 
Ann.  712,  1  So.  797,  2  So.  418;  State 
V.  Gosey,  111  La.  616,  35  So.  786. 

Maine. — McLellan  r.  Longfellow,  32 
Me.  494,  54  Am.  Dec.  599. 

Maryland. — Gliew  v.  Farmers' 
Bank,  2  Md.  Ch.  231;  Lowe  v.  Lowe, 
111  Md.  113,  73  Atl.  878. 

Michigan. — Lorimer  v.  Lorimer,  124 
Mich.  631,  83  N.  W.  609,  7  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  367. 

Missouri. — Ingerham  v.  Weather- 
man, 79  Mo.  App.  480. 

Montana. — Davis  r.  Morgan,  19 
Mont.  141,  47  Pac.  793;  Smith  v. 
Caldwell,  22  Mont.  331,  56  Pac.  590. 

Nebraska. — Nelson  t\  Becker,  32 
Neb.  99,  48  N.  W.  962;  Spaulding  v. 
State,  01  Neb.  289,  85  N.  W.  80. 

Neic  York. — Utica  Bank  r.  Mer- 
seroaii,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528,  49  Am.  Dec. 
189;  Mc'Clure  r.  Goodenough,  19  Civ. 
Pro.  191,  12  N.  Y.  S.  459;  Matter  of 
Shawmut  ilin.  Co.,  94  App.  Div.  156, 
87  N.  Y.  S.  1059 ;  Downey  t:  Owen,  98 
App.  Div.  411,  90  N.  Y.  S.  280. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Hughes  v.  Boone, 
102  N.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  280. 


Ohio. — Rogers  r.  Dare,  Wright  136. 

Oklahoma. — Brown  v.  State,  132 
Pac.  359. 

Texas.— Walker  v.  State,  19  Tex. 
App.  176;  Dyer  v.  McWhirter,  51  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  200,  111  S.  W.  1053. 

Utah. — State  v.  Snowden,  23  Utah 
318,  65  Pac.  479. 

^'ernlont. — Maxham  r.  Place,  46  Vt. 
434;  Hick  v.  Blanchard,  00  Vt.  673, 
ir>  Atl.  401. 

Virginia. — Parker  V.  Carter,  4 
Munf.  273,  6  Am.  Dec.  513. 

West  Virginia. — State  v.  Douglass, 
20  W.  Va.  770. 

Wisconsin. — Dudley  v.  Beck,  3  Wis. 
274;  Dickson  r.  Bills,  144  Wis.  171, 
128  N.  W.  868. 

See  also  infra.  §  98  et  seq. 

2  Bush  V.  McComb,  2  Houst. 
(Del.)  546. 

3  Liggett  f.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4 
U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286. 

Cross-Examination.  —  A  privileged 
communication  cannot  be  drawn  from 
a  witness  on  cross-examination. 
Jahnke  r.  State,  68  Neb.  182,  104  N. 
W.  154,  reversing  68  Neb.  154,  94  N. 
W.  158;  Ft.  Worth,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Lock,  30  Tex.  Civ.  App.  426,  70  S. 
W.  456;  Herring  V.  State,  (Tex.)  42 
S.  W..  301. 

4  See  infra.  §  128  et  seq. 

5  Chirac  v.  Reinicker,  11  Wheat. 
280,  6  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  474;  Jenkinson 
V.  State,  5  Blackf.  (Ind.)  465;  Hughes 
V.  Boone,  102  N.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  286. 


150 


Pi;  1  VI  l.KGEI)    COMMUA'ICATIOXS. 


[§   i>3 


client  be  compelled  to  disclose  them,^  notwithstanding  a  statute 
permitting  a  party  to  an  action  to  be  examined  in  his  own  behalf,' 
or  at  the  instance  of  the  adverse  party.^ 

It  is  not  material  whether  the  evidence  relate  to  what  was  said 
by  the  attorney  or  what  was  said  by  the  client,  in  their  private  con- 
versation on  the  business  in  which  the  attorney  was  professionally 
employed;  the  statements  of  each  to  the  other,  in  such  cases,  must 
be  considered  as  privileged  communications.^ 

The  just  application  of  this  rule,  from  a  very  early  period  in  the 
history  of  the  law,  has  been  upheld  by  the  courts  as  of  supreme  im- 
j)ortance  in  the  administration  of  justice ;  and  it  has  wisely  been 
left  untouched  by  any  of  the  statutes  in  modern  times  which  have 
so  liberally  removed  restrictions  from  the  rules  of  evidence ;  ^°  in- 
deed, as  shown  by  the  following  section,  the  rule  has  been  substan- 
tially confirmed  by  legislative  action  in  many  jurisdictions. 

§  93,  Effect  of  Statutory  Provisions.  —  In  some  states  the 
rule  forbidding  the  disclosure  of  conlidential  communications 
between  attorney  and  client  has  been  embodied  in  statutory  enact- 


6  Ijirniinghara  R.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Wild- 
man,  ]19  Ala.  547,  24  So.  .548. 

Client  as  Witness. — Communica- 
tions made  in  consultation  by  a  client 
witli  his  attorney,  are  privileged  and 
[irotected  from  inqviiry  when  the 
client  is  a  witness  as  well  as  when 
the  attorney  is  a  witness.  Bigler  v. 
Heylier,  4.3  Ind.  112. 

While  a  party  who  oilers  himself 
as  a  witness  cannot  refuse  to  answer 
pertinent  questions  on  the  ground 
that  lie  has  ((Jinmunicated  to  his  at- 
torney the  matters  inquired  about, 
yet  he  cannot  be  compelled  to  state 
wlu'tlier  or  not  he  has  communicated 
•••■rtain  facts  to  his  attorney,  or  given 
liirn  ((Ttain  instructions.  Hirming- 
iiani  R.,  etc.,  Cu.  r.  Wildman,  111)  Ala. 
/■)47,  24  .So.  548. 

Tpulford's   Appeal,   48   Conn.   247; 


Root  V.  Wright,  84  N.  Y.  72.  38  Am. 
Rep.  495,  reversing  21  Hun  344. 

8  Root  V.  Wright,  84  N.  Y.  72,  38 
Am.  Rep.  495,  reversing  21  Hvin  344. 

9  Jenkinson  v.  State,  5  Blackf. 
(Ind.)    405. 

10  Andrews  v.  Simms,  33  Ark.  771; 
Oliver  r.  Cameron,  Mac  Arthur  &  M. 
(D.  C.)  237. 

Rule  Well  Settled. — There  is,  per- 
haps, no  principle  of  law  which  rests 
on  a  sounder  basis,  or  which  is  sup- 
ported by  a  more  uniform  chain  of 
adjudication,  than  that  which  holds 
all  information  acquired  by  an  at- 
torney from  liis  client,  toucliing  mat- 
ters that  come  witliin  the  ordinary 
scope  of  professional  employment,  as 
privileged  communications.  Parish 
V.  Gates,  29  Ala.  254;  Iluglies  v. 
Boone,  102  N.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  280. 


§  93] 


PIMVILEGED    COMMUNICATIOJSTS. 


lOi 


ments/^  which,  as  a  rule,  have  been  held  to  be  merely  declaratory 


11  Arlansas. — Andrews  r.  Simms, 
33  Ark.  771;  Fox  v.  Spears,  78  Ark. 
71,  93  S.  W.  560. 

Califonvia. — Hardy  f.  j\Iartin,  150 
Cal.  341,  89  Pac.  Ill;  Matter  of  Hig- 
gins,  15G  Cal.  257,  104  Pac.  G. 

Colorado. — Denver  Tram\\'ay  Co.  v. 
Owens,   20  Colo.   107,   36  Pac.  848. 

Dakota. — O'Neill  r.  Murry,  6  Dak. 
107,  50  N.  W.  619. 

Georgia. — Lewis  r.  State,  91  Ca. 
168,  16  S.  E.  986;  Harkless  v.  Smith, 
115  Ga.  350,  41  S.  E.  634. 

Indiana. — State  v.  VanBuskirk,  59 
Ind.  384;  George  V.  Hurst,  31  Ind. 
App.  660,  68  N.  E.  1031. 

Iowa. — Lauer  v.  Banning,  140  la. 
319,  118  N.  W.  446;  Stoddard  v.  Ken- 
dall, 140  la.  688,  119  N,  W.  138. 

Kentuclnj. — Deniinzio  v.  Scholtz, 
117  Ky.  182,  4  Ann.  Cas.  529,  77  S. 
W.  715. 

Louisiana. — Shanghnessy  v.  Fogg, 
15  La.  Ann.  330. 

Minnesota. — Hilary  r.  Minneapolis 
St.  Pv.  Co.,  104  Minn.  432,  116  X.  W. 
933. 

Missouri. — State  v.  Dawson,  90  Mo. 
149,  1  S.  W.  827.  See  also  Liggett  v. 
Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4  U.  S.  App.  438, 
2  C.  C.  A.  286  (decided  under  the 
Missouri  statute). 

Montana. — Mackel  V.  Bartlett,  33 
I\lont.  123,  82  Pac.  795. 

Xehraska. — Sloan  v.  Wherry,  51 
Xcb.  703,  71  N.  W.  744. 

Xorth  Carolina.— N.  C.  Rev.  1905, 
§  1U20;  Hughes  V.  Boone,  102  N.  C. 
137.  9  S.  E.  286. 

OJiio. — Benedict  v.  State,  44  Ohio 
St.   679,   11   N.  E.   125. 

South  Dakota. — Austin,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.  V.  Heiser,  6  S.  D.  429,  61  N.  W. 
445. 


Tc.r«,s-.— Menefee  v.  State,  149  S.  \V. 
138. 

Wisconsin. — Selden  v.  State.  74 
Wis.  271,  42  N.  \V.  218,  17  Am.  St. 
Rep.  144. 

The  Georgia  Civil  Code,  §  5198,  de- 
clares that  certain  admissions  and 
communications  are,  from  public  pol- 
icy, to  be  excluded  as  evidence. 
Among  these  are  communications  be- 
tween attorney  or  counsel  and  client. 
Section  5271  of  the  same  code  gives 
the  rule  more  explicitly.  Its  provis- 
ions are,  that  '"no  attorney  shall  be 
competent  or  compellable  to  testify 
in  any  court,  .  .  .  for  or  against 
his  client,  to  any  matter  or  thing, 
knowledge  of  which  he  may  have 
acquired  from  his  client,  by  virtue 
of  his  relation  as  attorney,  or  by  rea- 
son of  the  anticipated  employment  of 
him  as  attorney,  but  shall  be  both 
competent  and  compellable  to  testify, 
for  or  against  his  client,  as  to  any 
matter  or  thing,  knowledge  of  which 
he  may  have  acquired  in  any  other 
manner."  Section  5199  still  further 
enlarges  the  rule  relating  to  privi- 
leged communications,  and  declares 
that  "communications  to  any  attorney, 
or  his  clerk,  to  be  transmitted  to  the 
attorney  pending  his  employment,  or 
in  anticipation  thereof,  shall  never  be 
heard  by  the  court."  Stone  v.  Min- 
ter,  111  Ga.  45,  36  S.  E.  321,  50 
L.R.A.  356. 

Idaho. — Under  the  provisions  of 
subdivision  2,  §  5958,  Rev.  St.  1887, 
an  attorney  cannot,  without  the  con- 
sent of  his  client,  be  examined  as  to 
any  communication  made  by  the  client 
to  him,  or  his  advice  given  thereon 
in  the  course  of  professional  employ- 


158 


VR I VI LIXiKD    COMM U XICATIONS. 


[§  94 


of  the  common  law,"  mkI  subject  to  the  same  construction.^^  In 
one  instance  where  the  statutory  rules  of  evidence  were  held  inap- 
plicable to  criminal  cases,  the  common-law  rule  as  to  privileged 
comnnmications  was  applied.^*  In  Xew  York,  however,  the  stat- 
ute has  extended  the  connnon-law  ])rohibition  in  some  respects,^^ 
j)articularly  as  to  the  waiver  thereof,^^  and  as  to  the  attorney's 
competency  as  a  witness  with  respect  to  the  preparation  and  exe- 
cution of  wills. ^'  Local  statutes  of  this  character,  it  seems,  are 
not  applicable  when  the  question  of  privilege  arises  in  the  United 
States  courts.''* 

§  94.   Origin  and  Reason  of  Rule.  —  The  rule   as  to   privi- 
leged connnunications  was  applied,  apparently  for  the  first  time, 


niPiit.  In  re  Xiday,  15  Idaho  559,  98 
Pac.  845. 

J/tssowri. — Section  8925  of  the  Ee- 
vised  Statutes  of  Missouri  means  that 
the  intercourse  between  client  and  at- 
torney should  be  protected  by  pro- 
found secrecy,  and  that  under  no  guise 
or  subtlety  should  an  evasion  of  the 
rule  be  permitted.  Henry  v.  Bud- 
decke,  81  Mo.  App.  360. 

yew  York. — Section  835  of  the 
Code  of  Civil  Procedure  provides  that 
"an  attorney  or  counselor  at  law 
shall  not  be  allowed  to  disclose  a  com- 
munication made  by  his  client  to 
him,  or  iiis  advice  given  thereon,  in 
the  course  of  his  professional  em- 
ployment, nor  shall  any  clerk,  stenog- 
rajjhcr  or  otlicr  person  employed  by 
bucli  attorney  or  counselor  be  allowed 
to  disclose  any  such  communication 
or  advice  given  thereon." 

12  California. — Mur])liy  v.  \\"at('r- 
house,  113  Cal.  4G7,  45  Pac.  8(i(i,  54 
Am.  St.  Rep.  305. 

(Irorgia. — O'Brien  r.  Sj)al(liiig.  102 
i',a.  490,  31  S.  E.  TOO.  G(i  Am.  St.  Hep. 
2(/2;  Stone  r.  Miiitcr.  Ill  Ca.  45,  30 
S.  K.  321,  50   !>.!{. A.  350. 


Xehrasla. — Brady  v.  State,  39  Neb. 
529,  58  N.  W.  161. 

Oklahoma. — Evans  v.  State,  5 
Okla.  Crim.  643,  115  Pac.  809,  34 
L.R.A.(N.S.)   577. 

Oregon. — State  v.  Gleason.  19  Ore. 
159,  23  Pac.  817. 

Utah. — In  re  Young.  33  Utah  382, 
14  Ann.  Gas.  596.  94  Pac.  731.  126 
Am.  St.  Rep.  84.3,  17  L.R.A.  (N.S.) 
108. 

Wa.shington. — Hartness  v.  Brown, 
21  Wash.  655,  56  Pac.  491 :  Williams 
V.  Blumenthal,  27  Wash.  24,  67  Pac. 
393. 

Wisconsin. — In     re     Downing. 
Wis.  581,  95  N.  W.  876. 

13  Keck  r.  Bode,  13  Ohio  Cir. 
413. 

H  Benedict  V.  State,  44  Ohio  St. 
679,  11  N.  E.  125. 

15  Section  836  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.; 
In  re  Cunnion,  201  N.  Y.  123,  Ann. 
Cas.  1912  A  834,  94  N.  E.  048,  affirm- 
ing 135  App.  Div.  804,  120  N.  Y.  S. 
200. 

16  See  infra,  §   129. 

17  See  infra,  §  126. 

18  Connecticut  Mut.   L.   Tns.   Co.   v. 


118 


Di 


^    1)4]  PRIVILEGED    COMMU^'ICATIO^^S..  159 

in  the  case  of  Berd  r.  Lovelace/^  and  for  three  centuries  at  k'ast  it 
has  been  steadily  upheld  by  the  courts  on  the  ground  that,  for  the 
proper  administration  of  the  law,  the  confidence  which  it  encour- 
ages the  client  to  repose  in  the  attorney  to  whom  he  resorts  for 
legal  advice  and  assistance,  should  upon  all  occasions  be  invio- 
lable,^" because  greater  mischiefs  would  probably  rcsnlt  from  re- 
quiring or  permitting  its  disclosure  than  from  wholly  rejecting 
evidence  thereof.^  The  rule  is  not  one  of  mere  professional 
conduct.'' 

The  idea  which  seems  to  be  involved  in  its  establishment  is  not 
that  of  mere  secrecy.  It  is  not  that  the  client  has  imparted  to  the 
attorney  information  about  a  matter  wdiich  is  to  be  concealed  from 
the  public.  But  it  is  founded  on  altogether  a  different  principle. 
Having  respect  solely  to  the  free  and  unembarrassed  administra- 
tion of  justice,  and  to  the  security  of  all  men  in  the  enjoyment  of 
their  civil  rights,  no  man  is  under  a  legal  obligation  to  disclose 
facts  or  circumstances  which  would  render  questionable  his  de- 
mand for  a  particular  right,  or  impair  his  defense  to  another's 
denumd.     Originally,  suitors  and  defendants  appeared  personally 

Schaefer,  94  U.  S.  457,  24  U.  S.   (L.  Massachusetts. — Hatton    r.    Tvobin- 

ed.)    25];    Liggett    r.   Glenn,   51    Fed.  son,   14  Pick.  416,  25  Am.  Dec.  415: 

381.  4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286.  Barnes  r.  Harris,  7  Cusli.  576,  54  Am. 

19  Gary   (Eng.)    88.  Dec.  734;  Doherty  v.  O'Callaglian.  157 

20  United  States.— Liggett  v.  Glenn,  Mass.   90,  31  N.  E.   726,  34   Am.   St. 
51    Fed.  381,  4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  Rep.  258,  17  L.R.A.   188. 

C.  A.  286 ;  In  re  Ruos,  159  Fed.  252.  Minnesota.— Struckmeyev  v.  Lamb, 

Alabama.— Far ish  v.  Gates,  29  Ala.       ''^  ^^i""-  366.  77  N.  W.  987. 
254_  Missouri. — State   V.    Faulkner,    175 

■Connecticut.— Goddard   v.   Gardner,      ^°-  ^'*'^'  '^^  ^-  ^'-  l^^' 
28  Conn    17"'  Pemnsi/lrania. — Heister  v.   Davis,  3 

n„;„  u     1  Tv/r  ri      1       n       Yeates,  4;  In  re  Matthews,  5  Pa.  L.  J. 

Delaware. — Bush     v.     McComb,     2 
T.       ^    ^,„  Rep.   149,  4  Am.  L.  J.  356,  1  Phila. 

Li  oust.  546.  ,  ^ 

292,  9  Leg.  Int.  11. 


(icorgia. — Stone  v.  Minter,  111   Ga 
45,  36  S.  E.  321,  50  L.R.A.  356. 


Texas. — Mcintosh  v.  Moore,  22  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  22,  53  S.  W.  611. 
Idaho.-ln  re  Niday,  15  Idaho  559,  rermonf.-Dixon  r.  Parmelce.  2  Vt. 

98  Pac.  845.  ^^5 

7ira»j,5a*.— Michael     v.     Matson,     81  i  state   v.   Perry,   4   Idaho  224,   38 

Kan.  360.  105  Pac.  537.  Pac.   655;    State    v.   Douglass,   20    W. 

Maine. — Wade    v.    Ridley,    87    Me.      Va.  770. 
368,  32  Ail.  975.  2  Liggett  v.   Glenn,  51   Fed.  381,  4 


160 


PiaVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  9^ 


before  the  tribimal  which  interpreted  and  administered  the  law. 
Subsequently,  however,  when  the  application  of  legal  principles 
and  the  forms  of  procedure  became  more  complicated  and  intricate, 
the  services  of  persons  having  knowledge  of  the  one  and  skill  in  the 
other  came  into  demand,  and  to  fully  protect  the  rights  of  par- 
ties litigant  the  procurement  of  the  services  of  persons  skilled  in 
the  law  became  universal.  'No  man  being  compelled  himself  to 
disclose  the  weakness  of  his  case,  it  followed,  almost  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  that  the  person  who  represented  him,  and  presented 
that  case,  could  not  do  so.  If  it  were  otherwise,  the  free  admin- 
istration of  justice  would  be  restricted,  and  the  ascertainment  and 
enforcement  of  rights  endangered.  Therefore,  when,  in  order  to 
obtain  the  measure  of  his  rights,  the  client  resorts  to  a  representa- 
tive who  can  better  judge  the  merits  of  his  case,  and  discloses  to 
him  the  facts  upon  which  the  ascertainment  of  his  rights  must 
depend,  the  law  puts  a  seal  upon  the  lips  of  his  counsel  just  as 
effectually  as  the  interest  of  the  client  placed  a  ban  upon  his 
own  disclosure.^     The  rule  undoubtedly  confers  a  right  upon  the 


U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  28G;  U.  S. 
V.  Lee,  107  Fed.  702. 

3  Stone  V.  Minter,  111  Ga.  45,  3fi 
S.  E.  321,  50  L.R.A.  356;  Rochester 
City  Bank  v.  Suydam,  5  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)  254;  Mcintosh  v.  Moore,  22 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  22,  53  S.  W.  611. 

The  principle  of  privileged  commu- 
nications was  ably  considered  by 
Lord  Brougham  in  Grcenough  v.  Gas- 
kel,  1  Myl.  &  K.  (Eng.)  98.  He  said: 
"The  foundation  of  the  rule  is  not 
difTicult  to  discover.  It  is  not  (as 
lias  sometimes  boon  said)  on  account 
(if  Miiy  particuhir  importance  whicli 
till-  law  attributes  to  the  business  of 
]i'>in\  i)rofossor8,  or  any  particular 
disposition  to  all'ord  tlicm  protcotinn, 
tlioii^ili  ciTliiinly  it  may  not  b"  very 
easy  to  discover  wliy  a  like  privilege 
has  been  ri-fu.scil  to  otbers,  and 
especially  to  medical  advisers.  But 
it  is  out  of  regard  to  tlic  iiitt-rests  of 
justice,  wliidi  ciiiini.t   In'  ii|ili(ddrii.  and 


to  the  administration  of  justice, 
which  cannot  go  on,  without  the  aid 
of  men  skilled  in  jurisprudence,  in 
the  practice  of  courts,  and  in  those 
matters  affecting  the  rights  and  obli- 
gations which  form  the  subject  of  all 
judicial  proceedings.  If  the  privi- 
lege did  not  exist  at  all,  every  one 
would  be  thrown  upon  his  own  legal 
resources.  Deprived  of  all  profes- 
sional assistance,  a  man  would  not 
venture  to  consult  any  skilful  person, 
or  would  only  dare  to  t(dl  his  coun- 
sel half  his  ease."  Blackburn  r. 
Crawlnrd,  :]  Wall.  175,  IS  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)    18(i. 

It  is  obvious  tliat  tliere  would  be 
an  end  to  all  confidence  between  the 
client  and  his  attorney,  if  the  lat- 
ter was  at  lilx'rty,  or  compellable,  to 
disclose  the  facts  of  which  he  liad 
thus  obtained  possession.  Goddard 
r.  (iardner.  28  Conn.  172. 


§  95] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


161 


client/  which  he  alone  is  authorized  to  waive;  ^  and  it  is  supported 
by  several  authorities  on  the  broad  ground  of  public  policy.® 

It  is  an  attorney's  right  to  guard  the  secrets  of  his  client  where 
such  secrets  do  not  involve  an  actual  or  intended  breach  of  the  law 
on  the  part  of  the  client,  and  hence  complicity  by  the  attorney 
therein,  and  the  court  should  support  him  in  such  duty.' 

§  95.  Construction  of  Rule.  —  The  rule  excluding  confiden- 
tial communications  between  attorney  and  client  is  to  be  construed 
with  reference  to  its  policy ;  and  while  it  ought  not  to  be  weakened 
by  a  narrow  construction,  neither  should  it  be  extended  beyond 
the  limits  of  the  reason  upon  which  it  is  based.® 


The  object  of  the  rule  seems  plain- 
Ij^  to  require  that  the  entire  profes- 
sional intercourse  between  attorney 
and  client,  whatever  it  may  have  been, 
shall  be  protected  by  profound  secre- 
cy. Bush  v.  McConib,  2  Iloust.  (Del.) 
546. 

4  Liggett  V.  Glenn.  51  Fed.  381,  4 
U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286. 

5  See  infra,  §  128. 

6  White  r.  State,  86  Ala.  69,  5  So. 
674;  Andrews  r.  Simms,  33  Ark.  771: 
State  V.  Barrows,  52  Conn.  323 ; 
Elliott  V.  U.  S.,  23  App.  C'as.  (D.  C.) 
456;  Verdelli  r.  Gray's  Harbor  Com- 
mercial Co.,  115  Cal.  517,  47  Pac.  364, 
778;  Gabriel  r.  McMullin,  127  la.  426, 
103  N.  W.  355;  Sargent  r.  Hampden, 
38  Me.  581. 

It  is  recognized  by  the  courts  that 
the  exclusion  of  evidence  of  profes- 
sional communications  as  privileged, 
is  founded  upon  the  same  great  con- 
siderations of  public  policy  which  for- 
bid the  revelation  on  the  witness 
stand  of  secrets  of  state;  of  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  grand  jury  room;  and 
of  confidential  intercourse  between 
husband  and  wife.  Oliver  r.  Cameron, 
MacArthur  &  M.   (D.  C.)  237. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 11. 


7U.  S.  v.  Lee,  107  Fed.  702;  Sam- 
ple V.  Frost,   10  la.  266. 

8  Goddard  v.  Gardner,  28  Conn. 
172;  Pulford's  Appeal,  48  Conn.  247; 
In  re  Huffman,  132  Mo.  App.  44,  111 
S.  W.  848. 

It  is  for  the  protection  and  secur- 
ity of  clients  that  their  attorneys-at- 
law  or  counsel  are  restrained  from 
giving  evidence  of  wliat  they  have 
had  communicated  and  intrusted  to 
them  in  that  character;  so  that  legal 
advice  may  be  had  at  any  time  by 
every  man  who  wishes  it  in  regard 
to  his  case,  whether  it  be  bad  or  good, 
favorable  or  unfavorable  to  him,  with- 
out the  risk  of  being  rendered  liable 
to  loss  in  any  way,  or  to  punishment, 
by  means  of  what  he  may  have  dis- 
closed or  intrusted  to  his  counsel. 
But  wliere  it  is  impossible  that  the 
rights  or  the  interests  of  the  client 
can  be  affected  by  the  witness's  giv- 
ing evidence  of  what  came  to  his 
knowledge  by  his  having  been  counsel 
and  acted  at  the  time  as  attorney  or 
counsel  at  \slw,  the  rule  has  no  ap- 
plication whatever,  because  the  rea- 
son of  it  does  not  exist.  Hamilton  v. 
Xeel,  7  Watts   (Pa.)   517. 


162 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  9i 


As  it  is  iu  contravention  to  the  general  rules  of  law  because  of 
its  tendency  to  suppress  the  truth,  it  has  been  quite  generally  held 
that  the  rule  should  receive  a  strict  construction ;  ^  on  the  other 
hand,  however,  some  courts  favor  a  liberal  construction  on  the 
theory  that  one  consulting  a  lawyer  should  be  encouraged  to  com- 
niunicate  all  the  facts  without  fear  that  his  statements  may 
possibly  be  used  against  him  in  the  future.^"  It  is  true  that  the 
strict  enforcement  of  the  rule  may,  in  some  cases,  operate  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  truth ;  but  that  does  not  justify  the  breaking  down  of  a 
great  principle  of  protection  founded  in  wnsdom  and  public  policy, 
and  necessary  to  be  observed  in  the  administration  of  an  enlight- 
ened system  of  jurisprudence.^^  Truth,  like  all  other  good  things, 
may  be  loved  unwisely,  pursued  too  keenly,  and  may  cost  too 
much.^^ 


A  statute  excluding  an  attorney 
from  being  examined  without  the  con- 
sent of  his  client  as  to  any  communi- 
tatioi)  made  by  the  client  to  him,  or 
his  advice  given  thereon  in  the  course 
of  professional  employment,  should 
be  fairly  construed  and  applied  ac- 
cording to  the  plain  import  of  its 
terms.  Denver  Tramway  Co.  r. 
Owens.  20  Colo.  107.  36  Pac.  848. 

9Satterlee  r.  Bliss,  36  Cal.  489; 
Turner's  Appeal,  72  Conn.  305,  44 
Atl.  310;  Granger  '".  Warrington.  8 
111.  2!I9:  CoUra  V.  Wolcott.  14  111.  89; 
-McLaugiiliii  '".  (iilniore,  1  111,  App. 
563;  Foster  v.  Hall,  12  Pick.  (Mass.) 
89,  22  Am,  Dec.  400;  Hatton  ('.  Rob- 
inson. 14  i'ick.  (Mass.)  416,  25  Am. 
Dec.  415;  I'liiUips  v.  Chase,  201  Mass. 
444,  87  X.  E.  755,  131  Am.  St.  Rep. 
40fi:  In  re  Matthews,  5  Pa.  L.  J. 
INp.  149,  4  Am.  L.  J.  356,  1  Phila. 
292,  9  I.<,g,  Int,  11. 

10  Wade  r.  Ridley,  87  Me,  368,  32 
Atl,  975;  Kitz  r,  Buckmaster.  45 
App.  Div,  283,  61  \,  Y,  S,  64;  Or- 
niiiii  /•.  State.  22  Tcn.  App.  CIM,  3  S. 
W.  46S,  5S   Am.    JNp.  CCJ, 


The  I'nited  States  Supreme  Court, 
in  the  case  of  Connecticut  Mut,  L. 
Ins.  Co,  r.  Schaefer,  94  U.  S.  458,  24 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  251,  announces,  we  be- 
lieve, the  general  sentiment  of  the 
profession,  when  it  expresses  the  hope 
that  the  rule  will  remain  undisturbed 
by  any  future  legislation.  For  as  the 
court  in  that  case  proceeds  to  say : 
"The  protection  of  confidential  com- 
mimications  made  to  professional  ad- 
visers is  dictated  by  a  wise  and  liberal 
policy.  If  a  person  cannot  consult 
Ills  legal  adviser  without  being  liable 
to  have  the  interview  made  public  the 
next  day  by  an  examination  enforced 
by  the  courts,  the  law  would  be  little 
short  of  despotic.  It  would  be  a  pro- 
hibition upon  jirofessional  advice  and 
assistance,"  Oliver  '".  Cameron.  .Mac- 
Arthur  &  M,    (D,  C.)    237. 

11  Elliott  /•.  r.  S.,  23  Ai)p,  Cas, 
(D,  C.)   456, 

12  Pearse  r.  Pearse,  11  .lur.  (Eng,) 
52;  State  V.  Douglass,  20  W.  Va. 
770. 


§   i)0] 


ri;ivii.i;(iKu  co.m.muxicatio^^s. 


IGJ 


§  96.  Determining  whether  Privilege  Exists.  —  Wliother  a 
coininuiiication  by  a  client  To  his  attorney  was  made  in  confidence, 
is  a  question  of  fact  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  court.^'  It  is  requi- 
site, in  every  instance,  that  it  shall  be  judicially  determined  wheth- 
er the  particular  communication  in  question  is  really  privileged; 
and.  in  order  that  such  determination  may  be  advisedly  made,  it 
is  indispensable  that  the  court  shall  be  apprised,  through  prelimi- 
nary inquiry,  of  the  characterizing  circumstances.^*  The  general 
rule  is  that  there  is  no  presumption  of  privilege,^*  although  its  al- 
lowance in  a  clear  case  may  be  founded  upon  the  voluntary  state- 
ment of  the  attorney  that  his  knowledge  of  the  fact,  concerning 
which  he  is  requested  to  testify,  was  acquired  in  professional  con- 
fidence.^® But  the  witness  is  not  entitled  to  decide  the  question 
for  himself. ^"^     The  province  of  the  court  cannot  l)e  thus  usurped. 


isjlager  t:  Sliindler,  29  Cal.  47; 
Hull  r.  Lyon,  27  Mo.  570:  Davis  v. 
Morgan,  19  Mont.  141.  47  Pac.  793; 
Mackel  v.  Bartlett,  33  Mont.  123,  82 
Pac.  795;  People  i\  Hess,  8  App.  Div. 
143,  40  N.  Y.  S.  486;  Hughes  v. 
Boone,  102  N.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  286. 

Depends  on  Ciretitnstances. — As  it 
i.s  not  every  communication  made  by 
a  client  to  his  attorney  which  cannot 
be  divulged  by  the  latter  as  a  wit- 
ness, it  necessarily  follows  that 
wliether  the  fact  was  communicated 
professionally  or  not  must  depend  up- 
on the  circumstances  of  the  case,  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  fact 
disclosed.  Brazier  V.  Fortune.  10  Ala. 
516. 

Referee  Should  Decide  Question  for 
Jli  III  self. — Where  the  question  of 
privileged  communication  arises  be- 
fore a  referee,  he  should  decide  the 
))oint  himself  in  the  first  instance, 
instead  of  turning  the  matter  over  to 
tlie  court.  It  will  be  time  enough  to 
certify  the  question  when  he  is  asked 
to  do  so  in  a  proper  manner.  In  re 
Ruos.  159  Fed.  252. 


14  People's  Bank  v.  Brown,  112  Fed. 
654,  50  C.  C.  A.  411,  7  Am.  Bankr. 
Eep.  475;    In  re  Ruos,  159  Fed.  252. 

15  People's  Bank  r.  Brown,  112  Fed. 
654,  50  C.  C.  A.  411,  7  Am.  Bankr. 
Kep.  475;    In  re  Ruos,   159  Fed.  252. 

16  People's  Bank  /;.  Brown,  112  Fed. 
054,  50  C.  C.  A.  411,  7  Am.  Bankr. 
Rep.  475 :    In  re  Ruos,   159   Fed.  252. 

Allowing  Attorney  to  Determine 
Question  of  Privilege. — The  fact  that 
the  court  allowed  an  attorney  to  de- 
termine whether  he  would  testify  or 
not  is  not  a  ground  of  complaint 
where  the  result  was  not  affected  by 
it.     Maxham  v.  Place,  46  Vt.  434. 

17  In  re  Ruos,  159  Fed.  252. 

An  attorney  is  not  to  judge  what 
is,  or  is  not,  privileged  from  disclos- 
ure. He  must  state  tlie  occasion  and 
circumstances  of  the  act  or  communi- 
cation, and  the  general  nature  of  the 
matter  alleged  to  be  privileged,  so 
that  the  court  may  decide  whether 
he  shall  be  compelled  to  testify  or 
not.  Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L. 
J.  Rep.  199.  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

It  is  sometimes  a  question  of  great 


164 


PiaVlLEGED    COMMUNICATION'S. 


[§   96 


If  it  could  be  it  is  obvious  that  the  rule  under  consideration,  which 
is  designed  to  promote  the  administration  of  justice,  might  readily 
be  used  for  its  obstruction,  and  become  in  consequence  too  per- 
nicious to  be  tolerated.''®  The  privileged  character  of  the  commu- 
nication must  appear ;  '^  the  mere  fact  that  the  person  offered  as  a 
witness  is  an  attorney  at  law  does  not  render  it  improper  for  him 
to  relate  statements  or  communications  made  to  him  by  another; 
nor  is  the  fact  that  the  person  whose  statements  are  sought  to  be 
proven  was  the  client  of  a  particular  lawyer  at  the  time  the  com- 
munication was  made,  sufficient  in  itself  to  exclude  the  testimony 
of  the  latter  concerning  it.^°  It  is  the  business  of  the  party  claim- 
ing the  benefit  of  exemption  from  the  general  rule,  which  compels 
all  to  disclose  the  truth,  to  show  that  the  particular  instance  is  priv- 
ileged ;  failing  to  do  this,  it  must  be  taken  against  him.'    In  some 


delicacy  for  counsel  to  determine  be- 
tween his  obligations  to  tlie  public, 
and  his  solemn  and  sworn  duty  to 
his  client;  in  such  cases  the  counsel 
can  seldom  form  an  impartial  judg- 
ment, and  if  mistaken  he  is  not  to 
be  harshly  or  severely  dealt  witli. 
His  duty  is  to  submit  the  question  to 
the  court,  upon  which  the  law  has 
cast  the  duty  of  deciding  it.  Ex  p. 
Maulsby,  13  Md.  625. 

The  refusal  of  a  mtness  to  pro- 
duce papers,  acknowledged  to  be  in 
his  possession,  for  the  reason  that  it 
would  be  a  brcaeli  of  his  privilege  as 
attorney,  is  assuming  the  right  of  de- 
termining for  liimself  tiie  question  of 
}>riviU'ge,  which  is  not  his  province, 
but  that  of  the  court;  and  such  re- 
fusal is  a  contempt.  MitchoU'a  Case, 
12  .Abl).  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    2-1!). 

Denial  of  I'riation  hi/  Atlnnirji. — 
Altliougli  ;iM  iitlonicy.  w  Iwn  culU'd  u.s 
a  witness  as  to  coiimiiiniiiit  ions  made 
to  liiiii,  (ii.sclaims  (liat  lie  was  acting 
in  a  jjrofessional  cai)acity,  tiio  (jues- 
tion  is  non«'  the  less  f)ne  for  tlie 
court    to    (Icti  iiniiic    from    tbc    farts. 


Bacon    r.   Frisbie,   80   K   Y.   394,   36 
Am.  Rep.  627,  reversing  15  Hun  26. 

18  In  re  Ruos,  159  Fed.  252. 

19  State  r.  Stafford,  145  la.  285, 
123  N.  W.  ](!7. 

20  Stoddard  /•.  Kendall,  140  la.  688, 
119  X.  W.  138;  Herman  r.  Schlcsin- 
ger,  114  Wis.  382.  90  X.  W.  400,  91 
Am.  St.  Rep.  922. 

Where  a  bill  of  exceptions,  alleged 
by  a  defendant,  stated  that  at  the 
trial  of  the  case  in  a  lower  court  the 
plaintiff  produced,  as  a  witness,  his 
counsel,  who  testified  to  transactions 
between  the  parties,  it  was  held  that 
it  could  not  he  assumed,  in  favor  of 
the  excepting  party,  to  mean  tliat  tiie 
counsel  testified  to  conversations  be- 
tween liimself  and  client.  Blount  V. 
Kimpton,  155  Mass.  378,  29  N.  E. 
590,  31   Am.  St.  Rep.  554. 

1  Connecticut. — Turner's  Appeal,  72 
Conn.  305,  44  Atl.  310. 

Idaho. — In  re  Xiday,  15  Idaho  559, 
98   Pac.   845. 

Illinois. — Cliillieothe  Ferry,  etc., 
Co.  r.  .Jameson,  48  111.  281  ;  McLaugh- 
lin r.  (Jihiiore,  1  111.  A|)p.  563. 


§§    97,    98]  PRmLEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  1G5 

states,  however,  it  has  been  held  that  all  comminiications  between 
attorney  and  client  should  be  deemed  confidential ;  but  this  pre- 
sumption may  be  rebutted.^ 

§  97.  Enjoining  Secrecy.  —  The  law  does  not  regard  it  as 
necessary  for  the  protection  of  the  client  that  his  communications 
should  be  made  to  his  attorney  under  any  particular  circumstances 
or  injunctions  of  secrecy;  it  is  sufficient  that  the  relation  of  client 
and  attorney  subsisted  between  them  to  throw  around  the  proceed- 
ing an  impenetrable  veil  of  secrecy.^  The  rule  is  not  restricted 
to  such  matters  as  may  have  been  communicated  in  special  confi- 
dence ;  *  nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  client  be  apprised  of  his  rights 
thereunder.* 

Attorneys  and  clients  cannot  broaden  the  scope  of  the  privilege, 
although  they  ma}'  narrow  it  even  to  the  point  of  waiving  it  al- 
together; and,  therefore,  it  is  unimportant  that  the  client  exacts 
from  the  attorney  a  ]U'omise  that  he  Avill  keep  secret  whatever  com- 
munications should  be  made.  While  that  might  be  a  reason  for  the 
witness  refusing  to  answer  without  a  compulsory  order  of  the 
court,  it  would  not  and  could  not  of  itself,  without  the  aid  of  the 
law,  protect  a  communication.® 

Application  of  Rule. 

§  98.  Generally.  —  While  the  general  rule  respecting  privi- 
leged communications  between  attorney  and  client  is  well  under- 

loica. — Stoddard    v.    Kendall,    140  that   it   is    within   the   terms   of   the 

la.  688,  119  N.  W.  138.  statute   relating    to    confidential   and 

Pennsylvania. — Beeson     v.     Beeson,  privileged    communications.      Carroll 

9  Pa.  St.  279:  Lyon  v.  Lyon,  197  Pa.  r.    Sprague.   59   Cal.   655;    Sharon    r. 

St.  212,  47  Atl.  193.     Compare  Moore  Sharon,  79  Cal.  633,  22  Pac.  26.  131. 

V.  Bray,  10  Pa.  St.  519.  3  Wlieeler  r.  Hill,  16  Me.  329;  Mc- 

Utah. — State  r.  Snowden,  23  Utah  Lellan   r.  Longfellow,  32  Me.  494.  54 

318.  65  Pac.  479.  Am.    Dec.    599;    Parker    v.    Carter,   4 

Vermont.— E?ly\q  v.    Grout.   46   Vt.  Munf.   (Va.)   273,  6  Am.  Dec.  513. 

113.  4  Crawford    i\    INIcKissack,    1    Port. 

2Hager    r.    Shindler.    29    Cal.    47;  (Ala.)   433. 

Sharon  r.  Sharon.  79  Cal.  633.  22  Pac.  SMcLellan    r.    Longfellow.    32    Me. 

26.  131;   Borum  r.  Fonts.  15  Ind.  50.  494.  54  Am.  Dec.  599. 

The  burden  is  upon  the  party  seek-  6  u.  S.  v.  Lee,   107   Fed.  702. 
ing  to  suppress  the  evidence,  to  show 


166 


I'KIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  98 


stood,  its  application  frequently  presents  questions  of  some  diffi- 
culty, which,  of  course,  must  be  decided  in  accordance  with  the 
facts  appearing  in  the  cause."^ 

As  a  general  rule  it  may  be  said  that  the  privilege  extends  to 
communications  made  to  a  legal  adviser,  duly  qualified  as  such, 
and  employed  and  acting  in  that  capacity,  where  the  object  of  the 
party  is  to  obtain  a  more  exact  and  complete  knowledge  of  the  law 
affecting  his  rights,  obligations  or  duties,  relative  to  the  subject- 
matter  to  which  such  communications  relate ;  *  or,  in  other  words, 
whenever  the  communication  made  relates  to  a  matter  so  connect- 
ed with  the  employment  as  attorney  or  counsel  as  to  afford  a  pre- 
sumption that  it  was  the  ground  <>f  the  address  by  the  client,  then 
it  is  privileged  from  disclosure.^ 

Many  statements  of  fact  are  doubtless  made  by  clients  to  coun- 
sel by  reason  of  the  confidential  relation  existing  between  them, 
which  are  never  made  the  subject  of  consultation  nor  of  advice  on 
the  part  of  counsel,  nor  the  basis  for  professional  action,  but  they 
are  nevertheless  privileged  communications,  because  they  owe  their 


7  Arhiicklo  r.  Tompleton.  6o  Vt. 
205.  25  Atl.  1095. 

8  United  States. — Liggett  r.  Glenn, 
51  Fed.  .381,  4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C. 
A.  286. 

Alabama. — Crawford  v.  McKissack, 
1  Port.  433:  Brazier  r.  Fortune.  10 
Ala.  516. 

District  of  Columbia. — Elliott  ('.  17. 
S.,  23  App.  Cas.  450. 

Georgia. — Freeman  r.  Brewster,  93 
Ga.  648,  21  S.  E.  165. 

Illinois. — r.ranger  r.  Warrington, 
8  111.  29i). 

Maine. — McLellan  '".  Longfellow, 
32  Mo.  404.  54  Am.  Dec.  509;  Sargent 
r.   Ilatnpdcii,  38   Me.  581. 

.\fassacliusetts. — Foster  v.  Hall.  12 
Pifk.  80,  22  Am.  Dee.  400;  National 
Bank  of  Pepul)lic  r.  Delano.  177 
Mass.  362,  58  N.  E.  1079.  S3  Am.  St. 
Rep.  281. 

\cio  Yuri-. — I'lica  I'.nnk  r.  Mcrsc 
reaii,   3    I'.ail..    (  li.   528,   49    Am.    Dc.-. 


189;  Stuyvesant  v.  Peckham,  3  Edw. 
579;  Barry  v.  Coville,  53  Hun  620, 
7  X.  Y.  S.  36;  Bacon  r.  Frisbie,  80 
N.  Y.  394,  36  Am.  Pvep.  627,  revers- 
ing  15   Hun   26. 

Texas. — Mcintosh  r.  Moore,  22 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  22.  53  S.  W.  611. 

Vermont. — Wetherbee  r.  Ezekiel,  25 
Vt.  47. 

M^est  yirginia. — State  v.  Douglass, 
20  W.  Va.  770. 

Wisconsin.—Y)c  Witt  /".  Perkins,  22 
Wis.  473. 

9Turquand  v.  Kniglit.  2  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)  98;  Davis  r.  Morgan,  19 
Mont.  141,  47  Pac.  793;  Bacon  v. 
Frisl)ic,  SO  N.  Y.  394.  36  Am.  Rep. 
627,  reversing  15  Hun  26. 

Title  l(t  I'roperty. —  An  attorney 
ciuiiiot  lie  compelled  to  disclose  com- 
iMimications  iiia<ie  to  liim  by  his 
client  as  to  the  iialmc.  extent,  or 
■  -roniuN   of   liis   title.      Ciiirac  r.  Rei- 


98] 


PKIVILEGED    COMMUA'ICATIONS. 


ig: 


existence  to  the  relation  occupied  by  the  parties  when  they  were 
made.^° 

The  materiality  or  importance  of  the  communication  is 
of  no  consequence."  A  privileged  communication  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted in  evidence  indirectly ;  ^^  nor  will  the  fact  that  the  client, 
wdiose  assent  to  the  removal  of  the  seal  of  professional  confidence 
from  privileged  communications  has  not  been  obtained,  is  not  a 
party  to  the  suit  in  which  his  attorney  is  called  upon  to  testify, 


nicker,    11    Wheat.   280,    G    U.    S.    (L. 
ed.)    474. 

So,  also,  communications  made  by 
the  purchaser  of  real  estate  to  an  at- 
torney whom  he  has  employed  to  see 
that  lie  gets  a  good  title,  and  to  pre- 
pare a  deed,  are  within  the  rule.  Car- 
ter V.  West,  93  Ky.  211,  19  S.  W.  592. 

10  Liggett  r.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4 
U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286. 

Desultory  Conversation. — In  a  con- 
versation, somewhat  desultory,  be- 
tween client  and  attorney,  it  may  not 
always  be  easy  to  determine  the  pur- 
pose for  which  certain  communica- 
tions were  made.  When,  however, 
they  appear  to  have  been  made  while 
the  parties  were  manifestly  speaking 
and  listening  in  that  character,  it  is 
reasonable  to  conclude  that  they  were 
made  for  the  ostensible  purpose;  and 
it  would  tend  to  impair  the  neces- 
sary confidence  if  a  different  infer- 
ence were  drawn.  Aiken  v.  Kilburne, 
27  Me.  252. 

"Aiken  r.  Kilburne,  27  Me.  252; 
Moore  v.  Bray,  10  Pa.  St.  519;  Sur- 
face V.  Bentz,  228  Pa.  St.  610,  21 
Ann.  Cas.  215,  77  Atl.  922;  Mcintosh 
r.  Moore,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  22,  53 
S.  W.  611. 

12  Liggett  v.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4 
U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286 ;  Holden 
V.  State,  44  Tex.  Grim.  382,  71  S.  \\. 
600. 


If,  for  instance,  a  prisoner,  cliarged 
with  murder,  informs  his  attorney 
where  the  pistol  with  which  the  man 
was  murdered  is  hidden,  the  attorney 
cannot  state  to  the  jury  that  he 
found  the  pistol,  as  his  finding  it  was 
the  result  only  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  place  where  it  was  hidden,  which 
was  communicated  to  him  by  his 
client:  the  rule  which  prohibits  him 
from  disclosing  professional  communi- 
cations is  violated  by  his  stating 
where  the  pistol  was  found,  though  he 
refrains  from  stating  that  his  knowl- 
edge of  where  it  was  to  be  found  was 
derived  from  what  his  client  told 
him.  State  r.  Douglass,  20  W.  Va. 
770. 

On  a  trial  for  theft  from  the  per- 
son, where  the  purpose  of  the  State 
was  to  show  that  the  amount  of 
money  in  possession  of  defendant  cor- 
responded with  the  money  taken  from 
the  prosecutor,  it  was  held  not  compe- 
tent, in  order  to  prove  this  fact,  to 
require  her  attorney  to  testify  that 
when  defendant  employed  him  she 
gave  him  two  $5  bills;  such  testi- 
mony comes  within  the  rule  of  a 
privileged  commvinication  to  her  at- 
torney and  is  inadmissible.  Holdon 
V.  State,  44  Tex.  Crim.  382,  71  S.  W. 
600. 


168 


TRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  98 


alter  the  case ;  ^^  nor  is  it  material  that  the  evidence  is  to  be  used 
in  another  jurisdiction.^*  Where  onlv  a  part  of  a  communication 
between  attorney  and  client  is  privileged,  and  its  separation  from 
that  portion  of  the  communication  which  is  not  privileged  is  in- 
volved in  difficulty,  the  whole  will  be  excluded ;  ^*  but  if  the  privi- 
leged and  unprivileged  parts  may  be  safely  separated,  it  would 
seem  that  the  privileged  matter  only  will  be  excluded.^® 

One  sense  is  privileged  as  well  as  another.  An  attorney  cannot 
be  said  to  be  privileged  as  to  what  he  hears,  but  not  as  to  what  he 
sees,  where  the  knowledge  acquired  as  to  both  has  been  from  his 
situation  as  an  attorney.^' 


13  Bacon  v.  Frisbie,  80  N.  Y.  394, 
3U  Am.  Rep.  627,  reversing  15  Hun 
26;  Root  V.  Wright,  84  N.  Y.  72,  38 
Am.  Rep.  495;  Utica  Bank  v.  Mer- 
sereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  528,  49 
Am.  Dec.  389;  Mcintosh  c.  Moore, 
22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  22,  53   S.  W.  611. 

"Matter  of  Whitlock,  51  Hun  351, 
3  X.  Y.  S.  855,  reversing  judgment  15 
Civ.  Pro.  204,  2  N.  Y.  S.  685,  wherein 
it  was  said:  "Ordinarily  in  taking 
the  testimony  of  citizens  or  residents 
of  tills  state,  to  be  used  elsewhere, 
the  practice  of  the  courts  has  been, 
and  is,  not  to  interfere  with  the 
course  of  the  examination,  so  long  as 
no  public  rights  are  invaded  and  no 
positive  statute  is  violated,  leaving 
the  reception  or  rejection  of  the  tes- 
timony to  the  rules  as  they  shall  be 
administered  in  the  foreign  jurisdic- 
tion at  the  time  of  the  trial.  But  the 
case  before  us  presents  an  exception 
to  the  rule.  Should  we  compel  Mr. 
U'hitlock  to  answer  these  questions, 
we  should  require  him  to  disclose  the 
very  secrets  which  the  statute  was  in- 
tended to  protect,  and  wliich  tiie  pub- 
lic is  HO  deej)ly  interested  in  ])res(rv- 
ing.  'I'licsff  (piestionH,  tliercfoic.  mid 
otlicrs.  if  tlxTC  be  any  of  like  iiii[Mjii, 
were    illc;.'ully   ;iimI    i  in|H  ii|i(i  ly    put    to 


the  witness  on  his  cross-examination, 
and  he  was  clearly  justified  in  refus- 
ing to  answer  them." 

15  In  Maas  v.  Bloch,  7  Ind.  202,  the 
court  said:  "But  here  is  a  conversa- 
tion of  which  it  is  admitted  a  part  is 
privileged,  and  it  is  insisted  a  part 
is  not;  and  the  question  is,  can  a 
separation  of  the  parts  be  properly 
made?  Can  the  part  which  was  ut- 
tered as  a  mere  witness  be  distin- 
guished from  that  which  was  uttered 
as  agent  of  the  plaintiff?  It  will  at 
once  be  admitted  that  the  task  would 
be  involved  in  difficulty.  Who  is  to 
determine  which  part  of  the  conversa- 
tion was  in  one  character  and  which 
in  the  other?  Is  it  to  be  done  by  the 
attorney  or  the  agent?  They  might 
disagree,  and  the  rights  of  the  client 
might  suffer  in  the  controversy.  And 
if  the  rule  is  to  be  established  that 
such  separations  of  single  conversa- 
tions may  be  attempted,  manifestly 
it  will  greatly  impair  the  freedom 
and  conlidence  of  conunnnication  be- 
tween tlie  |)iiiici|ial  and  the  agent, 
and    sei'iouslv    embarrass    tlicir    inter- 


course 
16  I, 


Zinc 


.,'  r.  Ingall^ 
■(■iiM.)  4!)  S.  W.  L'SS. 
17  Iv'dlison    /■.    Kemp.    5    i^sp.    (  l"]n 


Co., 

) 


98] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUKICATIONS. 


IGO 


Thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  privilege  extends  to  information 
derived  from  books  or  pa})ers  s'-  iwn  to  the  attornev  by  his  client, 
or  placed  in  his  hands  in  his  character  of  attornev  or  counsel,  bv 
such  client."  To  restrict  the  privilege  to  oral  or  written  commu- 
nications would  make  the  rule  infinitely  narrower  than  the  rea- 
son on  which  it  rests;  "  the  tendency  of  the  decisions  is  to  author- 
ize the  fullest  latitude  in  order  to  protect  a  client  against  any 
character  of  communication  between  him  and  his  attorney  trans- 
piring by  virtue  of  that  employment,  and  wdiich  may  be  used  to 
his  detriment.  And  it  has  been  expressh'  held  that  it  does  not  mat- 
ter whether  the  information  has  been  derived  from  a  client's 
words,  actions,  signs,  or  personal  appearance.^"  The  rule  also  ap- 
plies to  the  statements  made,  and  advice  given,  by  the  attorney  to 
the  client,^  providing,   of  course,  that  such   communications   are 


52;    Dietrich    r.   Mitchell,    43    111.   40, 
92  Am.  Dec.  99. 

In  Wheatley  r.  Williams,  1  M.  &  W. 
(Eng. )  o41.  the  court  held,  all  the 
judges  concurring,  that  an  attorney 
could  not  be  compelled  to  state  wheth- 
er an  instrument,  when  shown  to  him 
by  his  client,  was  stamped  or  not. 

18  Brown  r.  Payson,  6  N.  H.  443; 
Crosby  v.  Berger,  H  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
377,  42  Am.  Dec.  117,  affirming  3 
Edw.  538 ;  Jeanes  V.  Fridenberg,  3 
Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  (35; 
State   i\   Douglass,   20  W.  Va.  770. 

19  Dietrich  r.  Mitchell,  43  111.  40, 
92  Am.  Dec.  99. 

20  State  f.  Dawson.  90  Mo.  149,  1 
S  W.  827;  Kaut  r.  Kessler,  114  Pa. 
St.  603,  7  Atl.  586;  Holden  t'.  State, 

44  Tex.  Crim.  382.  71  S.  W.  600. 

1  People  r.  Hillhouse,  80  Mich.  580, 

45  N.  W.  484. 

Where  a  plaintiff,  after  consulta- 
tion with  his  attorney,  corrects  his 
testimony,  there  is  no  rule  of  practice 
which  authorizes  tlie  opposite  coun- 
sel to  call  the  attoinoy  to  the  stand 
against  his  objection,  and  interrogate 


him  as  to  what  statements  he  made  ti> 
his  client  during  such  consultation. 
Erickson  v.  Milwaukee,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
93  Mich.  414,  53  N.  W.  393. 

Words  used  by  an  attorney  in  de- 
tailing a  statement  of  a  case  to  a 
person  to  whom  he  applies  to  become 
security  on  tlie  bringing  of  a  writ  of 
error  are  to  be  deemed  made  in  the 
course  of  judicial  proceedings,  and 
are  privileged.  Blunt  v.  Zuntz,  Anth. 
KP.   {N.  Y.)   180. 

See  Ryles  v.  Statham  Bank,  7  Ga. 
App.  489,  67  S.  E.  383,  wherein  it  was 
said:  "We  do  not  think  that  the  rule 
in  relation  to  advice  or  information 
given  by  counsel  to  his  client  is  as 
strict,  or  as  well  grounded,  as  the 
considerations  of  public  policy  which 
prohibit  an  attorney's  disclosure  of 
facts  coming  to  his  knowledge 
througli  his  client.  The  client  is  sup- 
posed to  communicate  facts  which, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  may  re- 
late to  his  cause.  The  attorney  does 
not  usually  furnish  facts,  though  he 
is  always  pr»'siinied  to  correctly  fur- 
nisli   the  law  to  his  clients." 


170  PKIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 

of  siK'h  a  character  as  to  be  otherwise  within  the  riile.^ 


[§   9'^ 


§  99.  Knowledge  Not  Derived  from  Client.  —  It  has  been 
held  in  several  cases  that  the  principle  of  the  rnle  as  to  privileged 
communications  does  not  apply  to  the  discovery  of  facts,  within 
the  knowledge  of  an  attorney  or  counselor,  which  were  not  commu- 
nicated to  him  by  his  client,  although  he  became  acquainted  with 
such  facts  while  professionally  engaged  as  the  attorney  or  counsel- 
or of  such  client.^  It  is  diflficult  to  reconcile  this  principle  with 
the  general  rule,*  or  wdth  the  application  thereof  as  shown  by  the 
preceding  section;  and  Lord  Eldon  speaks  of  the  distinction  as 
being  extremely  nice.^  It  would  perhaps  be  a  more  general,  and 
at  the  same  time  a  more  simple  and  intelligible,  expression  of  this 
exception  to  say  that  the  privilege  does  not  extend  to  facts  coming 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  attorney  only  as  a  natural  or  accidental 
consequence  of  his  occupying  that  situation,  and  not  derived  by 
him  either  directly  or  indirectly  in  consequence  of  any  confidential 


2.4.  statement  cf  fact  made  by  an 
attorney  to  his  client,  and  which  ap- 
prises the  client  of  equities  in  a  third 
party,  is  not  a  privileged  communi- 
cation; and,  therefore,  may  be  proved 
by  the  attorney.  Wadsworth  v. 
Loranger,  Harr.   (Mich.)   113. 

3  Englnnd. — Spenceley  v.  Schulen- 
burgli,  7  East  357;  Say's  Case,  10 
Mod.   40. 

United  States. — In  re  Donohue,  2 
Hask.  17,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,990;  Gen- 
eral Electric  Co.  r.  Jonatlian  Clark, 
etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  170;  In  re  Ruo-*, 
159  Fed.  252. 

Alaham a. —K\ln^  r.  Tunstall,  124 
Ala.  2()8,  27  So.  420. 

.\  rl.ansufi. — Rosesvater  r.  Schwai'o 
Clothing  Co.,  r>S  Ark.  44(i,  25  S.  W. 
73. 

('alifornin. —  liniitcr  r.  Watson,  12 
Cal.  3G3,  7:;  Am.  !).■(.  .343. 


Delaware. — Chew  r.  Farmers'  Bank, 
2   Md.   Ch.  231. 

Illinois. — ^Chillicothe  Ferry,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Jameson,  48  111.  281 ;  Swain  v. 
Humphreys,  42  111.  App.  370. 

/oK-a.— Stoddard  v.  Kend.all,  140  la. 
688,  119  N.  W.  138. 

Neii:  Hampshire. — Patten  r.  Moor, 
29  N.  H.  163. 

yew  York. — Hebbard  r.  Haughian, 
70  N.  Y.  54;  King  v.  Ashley,  179  N. 
Y.  281,  72  N.  E.  106,  affirming  96  App. 
Div.  143,  89  N.  Y.  S.  482. 

North  Carolina. — Hughes  r.  Boone, 
102  N.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  280. 

Pennsylvania. — Jeanes  r.  Friden- 
berg,  3  Pa.  L.  .1.  Pep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J. 
(i5. 

Tennessee. — Lang  v.  Ingails  Zinc 
Co.,  49  S.  \V.  288. 

4  See  supra,  ij  92. 

5  Parkluirst  v.  Lowten,  2  Swanst. 
(Eng.)    201. 


§  99] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMU^'lCATIO>^S. 


171 


communication  made  to  him.^  In  the  carrying  out  of  this  excep- 
tion it  has  been  held  that  the  privilege  extends  only  to  conununica- 
tions  made  by,  or  on  behalf  of,  the  client.'  If  the  knowledge  was 
acquired  in  any  other  manner  the  attorney  is  not  only  a  competent 
witness  with  respect  thereto,  but  he  may  be  compelled  to  testify ;  * 
and  this  is  especially  true  as  to  information  derived  from  collateral 
quarters.®  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  an  attorney  may  express  his 
opinion  regarding  the  sanity  of  his  client  from  observations  made 
in  common  with  others  in  a  nonprofessional  capacity,  or  from  facts 
which  did  not  come  to  his  knowledge  because  his  professional 
guidance  had  been  sought."  These  rulings  are  based  on  the  theory 
that  it  is  not  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  extend  the  privilege  so 
that  by  its  operation  the  truth  would  be  suppressed.^^  This  ex- 
ception is  not  applicable  in  some  states.^^ 


Lord  Bioup:liam  has  attempted  a 
classification  of  wliat  lie  calls  the  ap- 
parent exceptions  to  the  privilege,  and 
tliat  which  is  material  to  our  pres- 
ent question  he  states  thus:  "Where 
tliere  could  not  be  said,  in  any  cor- 
rectness of  speech,  to  be  a  communi- 
cation at  all,  as  wliere,  for  instance, 
a  fact,  something  that  was  done,  be- 
came known  to  him,  from  his  having 
been  brought  to  a  certain  place  by  the 
circumstance  of  his  being  the  attor- 
ney, but  of  whicli  fact  any  other  man, 
if  there,  would  have  been  equally 
conusant  (and  even  this  has  been  held 
privileged  in  some  of  the  cases)." 
Greenough  v.  Gaskell,  1  ]\Iyl.  &  K. 
(Eng.)    98. 

In  Crosby  r.  Berger,  11  Paige 
(X.  Y.)  .377,  42  Am.  Dec.  117,  Chan- 
cellor \Yalworth  says  it  is  a  mistake 
to  suppose  that  everything  is  privi- 
leged that  comes  to  the  knowledge  of 
one  while  acting  as  attorney;  that 
the  privilege  extends  only  to  informa- 
tion derived  from  the  client  as  such, 
either  by  oral  communications,  or 
from  books  or  papers  shown  him  by 


liis  client  or  placed  in  his  hands  in 
his  character  of  attorney. 

3  Jeanes  v.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 
Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65.  See  also 
State  r.  Tall,  43  Minn.  273,  45  N.  W. 
449. 

7  Randolph  r.  Quidnick  Co.,  23  Fed. 
278 ;  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Jonathan 
Clark,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  170. 

SMcDougald  f.  Lane,  18  Ga.  444; 
Skellie  r.  James,  81  Ga.  419,  8  S.  E. 
607:  Chew  v.  Farmers'  Bank,  2  Md. 
Ch.  231;  Rogers  r.  Dare,  Wright 
(Ohio)    137. 

9  General  Electric  Co.  v.  Jonathan 
Clark,  etc.,  Co.,  108  Fed.  170. 

10  Oliver  v.  Warren,  16  Cal.  App. 
164,  116  Pac.  312;  Sheehan  r.  Allen, 
67  Kan.  712,  74  Pac.  245;  Wicks  v. 
Dean,  103  Ky.  69,  44  S.  W.  397. 

11  Swain  V.  Humphreys.  42  111.  App. 
370. 

12  77n(.s  the  Texas  statute  extends 
the  privilege  to  any  fact  which  comes 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  attorney  by 
reason  of  such  relation.  There  is  no 
qualification  except  that  it  must  be  a 
fact   which   he   learned   by   reason    of 


172 


PKIVILEGED    COMMUXICATIONS. 


[§   100 


§  100.  To    Whom    Communication    Must    Be    Made. — 

The  rule  as  to  privilejied  euiniiiunicatiuns  is  eoiitined  strietl}-  to 
communications  made  to  members  of  the  legal  profession/^  and 
those  whose  intervention  is  necessary  to  secure  and  facilitate  the 
communication  between  attorney  and  client;  as  interpreters, 
agents,  and  attorneys'  clerks  and  employees.^*  But  it  has  been 
held  that  the  principle  does  not  extend  to  communications  made 
by  the  defendant  to  the  confidential  clerk  of  a  law  firm,  who,  being- 
asked  by  defendant  if  he  w-as  a  lawyer,  replied  that  he  was  not,  and 
to  whom  the  communications  were  then  made  without  further  in- 


liis  relationship  as  an  attorney  to  the 
business  to  which  such  fact  has  ref- 
erence. It  is  not  required  that  in- 
formation of  such  fact  shall  come 
from  the  client.  It  matters  not  from 
wliat  source  it  has  been  obtained;  if 
it  was  obtained  because  of  the  rela- 
tionship of  attorney  in  and  about  that 
particular  business,  it  is  privileged. 
Hernandez  v.  State,  18  Tex.  App.  134, 
51  Am.  Rep.  295. 

^^  England. — Fountain  v.  Young,  0 
Esp.  113;  Wilson  v.  Rastall,  4  T.  R. 
759;  Du  Barre  v.  Livette,  Peake  N. 
P.  (ed.  1795)  78;  Parkins  v.  Hawl- 
shaw,  2  Stark.  239,  3  E.  C.  L.  393; 
Taylor  c.  Forster,  2  C.  &  P.  195,  12 
E.G.  L.  85. 

Colcrado. — Machette  r.  Wanless,  2 
Colo.  ]«n. 

Illinois. — Granger  r.  \\'arrinuton,  8 
111.  299;  McLauglilin  r.  (Jilmore,  1 
HI.  App.  503. 

Massachusetts. — Foster  v.  Hall,  12 
Pick.  89,  22  Am.  Dec.  400:  Ilatton  i\ 
Robinson,  14  Pick.  416,  25  Am.  Dec. 
415;  Barnes  v.  Harris,  7  Cush.  576,  54 
.Am.  Dec.  734;  Hoy  v.  Morris,  13  Gray 
519,  74  Am.  Dec.  050. 

I'cnnsylranin. — Scluibkagtl  /.  Dicr- 
Htein,  131  Pa.  St.  40,  18  At).  1059,  (I 
\..\\..\.  4M.  25  W.  X.  C.  185. 

'iltf     t(  sliiiKiiiy     Iff     a    .solirilnr     of 


patents  who  is  not  an  attorney  at 
law  is  not  a  privileged  communica- 
tion. Brungger  v.  Smith,  49  Fed. 
124. 

1*  Landsberger  v.  Gorham,  5  Cal. 
450;  Goddard  v.  Gardner,  28  Conn. 
172;  Hilary  v.  Minneapolis  St.  R.  Co., 
104  Minn.  432,  116  K  W.  933;  Sibley 
V.  Waffle,  16  N.  Y.  180;  Lecour  v.  Im- 
porters', etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  61  App.  Div. 
163,  70  K  Y.  S.  419;  Brand  v.  Brand, 
39  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  193,  X.  Y.  Code 
of  Civ.  Pro.  §  835;  Parker  v.  Carter, 
4  ]Munf.   (Va.)   273.  6  Am.  Dec.  513. 

A  stcncgrapher  employed  by  the 
attorney-general  to  assist  in  prepar- 
ing a  case  for  trial  will  not  be  per- 
mitted to  disclose  facts  coming  to  his 
knowledge  in  the  course  of  said  em- 
ployment. Such  communications  are 
privileged  and  the  disclosure  of  them 
is  against  public  policy.  State  f. 
Brown,  2  Marv.  (Del.)  380,  30  Atl. 
458. 

Code  Civ.  Proc.  Cal.  §  1881,  subd. 
2,  ))rovides  that  an  attorney's  stenog- 
rapher cannot  be  examined  without 
his  consent  concerning  anv  fact 
learned  in  such  capacity.  In  re  Love- 
hmd,  102  Cal.  595,  123   Pac.  801. 

.1  cIitL  and  (I  sl<  iiii'ii  ii plicr.  wlio 
ucrc  in  tiic  (illirc  of  (hi  h»\\yei-.s 
(laimed    to  liave   drawn    sucli   wills  at 


§  100] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


173 


quirj  or  suggestion.^*  The  person  consulted,  however,  need  not  be 
licensed  to  practice  in  all  the  courts;  thus  it  has  been  held  that  the 
privilege  extends  to  statements  made  to  one  licensed  to  practice 
only  before  justices  of  the  peace.^®  It  is  not  enough  that  the  party 
making  the  communication  believes  that  the  person  consulted  is  an 
attorney.^'  The  privilege  does  not  apply  to  a  mere  law  student, 
even  though  he  may  be  studying  in  the  otfice  of  an  attorney ;  ^^ 
nor  to  magistrates.^^  Where,  however,  under  peculiar  circum- 
stances a  judge  undertakes  to  give  legal  advice,  while  he  does  not 
in  any  technical  sense  become  the  attorney  of  the  person  to  whom 
it  is  given,  the  principles  applicable  to  communications  between 
attorney  and  client  require  that  the  confidence  be  respected.*^"     A 


tlie  time  of  their  alleg-ed  execution, 
were  not  competent  to  testify  as  to 
such  matters,  or  to  estaolish  a  writ- 
ing as  a  copy  of  the  will  in  question. 
Wallace  v.  'Wallace,  137  N.  Y.  S.  43. 
So,  though  a  clerk  in  the  law  office 
in  which  a  will  was  prepared  was 
competent  to  testify  as  to  its  execu- 
tion, where  he  was  a  siibscribing  wit- 
ness, his  testimony  was  inoompetent 
vvliere  based  upon  a  refreshing  of  his 
memory  by  the  establishment  of  a 
copy  of  the  will  by  testimony  incom- 
petent because  within  the  rule  of 
privilege.  Wallace  v.  Wallace,  137 
N.  Y.  S.  43. 

15  Hawes  v.  State,  88  Ala.  37,  7  So. 
302. 

See  also  infra,  §  102. 

16  Scales  r.  Kelley,  2  Lea  (Tenn.) 
706:  English  v.  Ricks,  117  Tenn.  73, 
95  S.  W.  189. 

17  Fountain  v.  Young,  6  Esp.  (Eng.) 
113;  Barnes  n.  Harris,  7  Cush. 
(Mass.)   576,  54  Am.  Dec.  734. 

Communications  relating  to  th(3 
subject-matter  of  a  suit,  made  by  one 
of  the  parties  thereto'  to  a  person  sup- 
posed to  be  an  attorney  at  law,  and 
with  a  view  to  engage  him  profes- 
sionally in  said  suit,  wlien  such  per- 


son was  not  an  attorney  of  any  court 
but  was  receiving  business  as  one,  and 
was  expecting  to  be,  and  was,  ad- 
mitted to  practice  at  the  next  term 
of  the  district  court,  are  not  privi- 
leged under  tlie  code.  Sample  v. 
Frost,  10  la.  266.  And  see  to  the 
same  effect  Holman  v.  Kimball,  22 
Vt.  555. 

In  People  r.  Pratt,  133  Mich.  125, 
94  N.  W.  752,  67  L.R.A.  923,  it  was 
however  said  arguendo  that  confiden- 
tial communications  made  in  reliance 
upon  the  supposed  relation  of  attor- 
ney and  client,  wliether  the  party  as- 
suming to  act  as  such  is  an  attorney 
or  not,  are  excluded  upon  the  plain- 
est principles  of  justice. 

18  Andrews  v.  Solomon,  Pet.  (C.  C.) 
356,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  378;  Barnes  r. 
Harris,  7  Cush.  (Mass.)  576,  54  Am. 
Dec.  734;  Holman  v.  Kimball,  22  Vt. 
555. 

i9Pierson  r.  Stcortz,  Morr.  (la.) 
136. 

20  People  v.  Pratt,  133  INlich.  125, 
94  N.  W.  752,  67  L.R.A.  923. 

Respondent,  having  been  subpoenaed 
by  the  grand  jury,  informed  the  prose- 
cuting attorney  that  he  would  like  to 
talk  with  some  one  in  whom  he  had 


174 


TRIVILEGED    COMMUIS'ICATIOXS. 


[§  100 


eommimieation  made  to  a  nonprofessional  person,  merely  em- 
ployed to  assist  another  at  a  trial  before  a  jnstice  of  the  peace,  is 
not  privileged,^^  even  if  it  is  conceded  that  a  litigant  can  employ 
any  person  he  may  choose  to  conduct  his  canse  in  that  tribunal ;  ^ 
but  there  may  be  occasions  when  the  interests  of  justice  would  re- 
(juire  a  departure  from  this  rule.^     In  Xew  Hampshire,  under  a 


confidence  before  testifying,  and 
asked  if  he  could  not  see  the  judge 
who  had  impaneled  such  jury.  The 
prosecutor  took  him  to  the  judge's 
room,  to  whom  respondent  stated  that 
he  wanted,  advice.  The  judge  said 
that  he  could  not  give  him  any  ad- 
vice, and  suggested  that  he  see  an  at- 
torney :  but  respondent  objected  that 
he  was  not  acquainted  with  any  at- 
torneys who  were  accessible.  The 
judge  thereupon  told  him  that  he 
could  not  advise  him  for  his  personal 
benefit,  but  would  say  that,  while  he 
was  not  obliged  to  testify  to  anytliing 
before  the  grand  jury  to  incriminate 
himself,  if  he  did  testify  he  should 
tell  the  truth,  whatever  it  was; 
whereupon  respondent,  after  a  little 
delay,  made  a  confession  to  the  judge. 
Held,  that  such  confession  was  a  con- 
lidi-ntial  communication,  within  the 
principle  applicable  to  the  relation 
of  attorney  and  client,  and  was  inad- 
missible against  respondent.  People 
r.  Pratt,  133  Mich.  ]25,  04  N.  W.  752, 
(i7  L.Pv.A.  l)-23. 

21  McLauglilin  v.  Gilmore,  1  111. 
A  pp.  oG3;  Bray  ton  v.  Chase,  3  Wis. 
450. 

1  .McLaughlin     r.     Cilniorc,     1     111. 

.\p,,.  .-.(;:{. 

2  In  Hencdict  V.  State,  44  Ohio  St. 
<i7!t,  11  N.  K.  125,  it  appears,  by  the 
liill  of  exceptions,  tiiat  one  Petty  had 
for  many  years  followed  the  business 
of  practicing  law  before  justices  of 
tlie  peace,   but  liad   not  been  admitted 


to  the  bar:  and.  in  his  capacity  as 
such  attorney,  a  prisoner  sought  his 
aid  and  advice.  The  iidmissions  made 
to  the  said  Petty  were  made  in  reply 
to  the  latter's  question  as  to  what  the 
facts  were.  So  far  as  the  record  dis- 
closes Petty  was  entirely  reputable  in 
his  eomimunity,  and  was  deemed 
thoroughly  trustworthy.  In  deciding 
that  the  statements  made  to  Petty 
were  privileged  the  court  said:  "It 
was  very  natural  that  the  prisoner, 
charged  with  a  grave  offense,  should 
seek  his  aid  and  counsel.  It  was, 
too,  most  natural  that  the  prisoner, 
in  answer  to  his  adviser's  question, 
should  freely  confide  to  him  the  se- 
crets which  he  would  repose  in  no  one 
wlio  did  not  sustain  toward  him  the 
relation  of  legal  adviser.  The  record 
discloses  that  the  prisoner  was  not 
seeking  simply  the  solace  of  some 
confidential  friend  in  whom  he  might 
confide  in  the  hour  of  his  extremity. 
On  tlie  contrary,  it  was  the  counsel  of 
some  one  of  superior  legal  learning 
and  e.vperience  he  was  seeking,  and  it 
was  for  the  purpose  of  putting  his  le- 
gal adviser  in  possession  of  the  facts 
which  would  enable  him  to  give  in- 
telligent and  valuable  legal  counsel 
that  the  confidence  was  reposed.  In- 
deed, there  was  present  every  element 
which  would  invoke  the  application 
of  the  general  rule  upon  tliis  subject 
except  the  mere  form  of  tlie  admis- 
sion of  the  adviser  to  practice  in 
courts    of    record.     Everv    consider a- 


§   101] 


PKIVILEGED    COMMU]:*ICATIONS. 


175 


local  statute  which  gave  in  express  terms  to  every  citizen  the  right 
to  have  his  cause  managed  by  any  person  of  good  moral  character 
whom  he  saw  fit  to  employ,  it  was  held  that  the  privilege  extended 
to  communications  made  to  any  person  employed  to  manage   a 


cause. 


§  101.  Relation  of  Attorney  and   Client  Must   Exist. — 

To  exclude  declarations  as  communications  to  counsel,  or  made 
with  a  view  to  employment,  their  root  in  the  relation,  or  contem- 
plated relation,  of  client  and  attorney  must  be  manifest.  They 
must  be  the  offspring  of  the  relation,  present  or  prospective,  not 
of  taking  or  expecting  to  take  the  fruits  of  such  a  relation  with- 
out forming  it.*     To  tax  a  lawyer's  courtesy  or  liberality  for  ad- 


tion  of  reason,  justice,  logic,  and  fair 
play  would  seem  to  demand  that  tlie 
mere  artificial  distinction  wliich  the 
state  calls  upon  us  to  enforce  should 
be  made  to  yield  to  the  modern  tend- 
ency to  apply  the  reason  and  spirit  of 
the  rule  instead  of  adhering  rigidly 
and  sullenly  to  its  letter." 

3  Bean  r.  Quimby,  5  N.  H.  94. 

4  Enfilaml. — Cobden  r.  Kendrick,  4 
T.  R.  432:  Shean  v.  Philips,  1  F.  &  F. 
440. 

Atahama. — Crawford  r.  McKissack, 
1  Port.  433;  Williams  v.  McKissack, 
]17  Ala.  441,  22  So.  489:  Baker  v. 
Jackson,  146  Ala.  688  mem.,  40  So. 
348;  Frederick  v.  State,  39  So.  915. 

(Jalifornia. — Sharon  r.  Sharon,  79 
Cal.  633,   22   Pac.  26,  131. 

(7eorr/i«.— Brown  i\  Mattliews,  79 
Ga.  1,  4  S.  E.  13:  Equitable  Securi- 
ties Co.  V.  Green,  113  Ga.  1013,  39  S. 
E.  434;  Harkless  v.  Smith,  115  Ga. 
350,  41   S.  E.  634. 

/«moJs.— Griffin  i:  Griffin,  125  111. 
430.  17  N.  E.  782;  Pvockfoid  c.  Fal- 
ver,  27  111.  App.  604. 

ludiand. — Indianapolis  r.  Scott,  72 
Ind.  U)G:  Bingham  v.  Walk,  128  Ind. 
164.  27  N.  E.  483;  Jennings  c.  Sturde- 


vant,  140  Ind.  641,   40  X.  E.  61. 

loirn. — Hanson  r.  Kline,  136  la. 
101,  113  N.  W.  504;  Moyers  v.  Fogar- 
ty,  140  la.  701,  119  X.  W.  159. 

Kansas. — State  r.  Herbert,  63  Kan. 
516,  66  Pac.  235:  Grimshaw  v.  Kent, 
67  Kan.  463,  73  Pac.  92;  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  V.  Day.  68  Kan.  726,  75  Pac. 
1021. 

Kentucky. — McCoy  v.  McCoy,  125 
S.  W.  177. 

Massachusetts. — Lynde  v.  McGreg- 
or, 13  Allen  172;  Hoar  r.  Tilden,  178 
Mass.  157,  .59  X.  E.  641. 

Michigan. — BrinkerhoflT  /•.  Peek, 
114  Mich.  628,  72  X.  W.  621,  4  De- 
troit Leg.  X.  722. 

Missouri. — ^Stato  v.  Cunimings,  189 
Mo.  626.  88  S.  W.  706;  West  v.  Free- 
man, 60  :Mo.  App.  682. 

Montana. — Mackel  v.  Bartlett,  33 
Mont.  123,  82  Pac.   795. 

Xeb^-asha. — Romberg  r.  Hughes,  18 
Xeb.  579,  26  X.  W.  351;  Basye  v. 
State,  45  Xeb.  261,  63  X.  W.  811; 
Home  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Berg,  46  Xeb. 
600.  65  X.  W.  780:  Elliott  r.  Elliott, 
3  Xeb.  (unofficial)  Rep.  8.32,  92  X. 
W.   1006. 

New  York. — Althouse  v.   Wells,   40 


176 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§   101 


vice  or  services  is  not  to  employ  him,^  although  in  some  instances 
a  different  rule  may  prevail  by  virtue  of  loeal  statutes,^  Communi- 
cations made  to  an  attorney,  even  in  the  course  of  his  profes- 
sional emploAanent,  b}'  persons  other  than  the  client  or  his  agents, 
are  not  privileged ;  '^  thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  communica- 


Hun  336;  Brcnnan  v.  Hall,  131  N.  Y. 
160,  29  N.  E.  1009.  affirming  60  Hun 
583  mem.,  14  N.  Y.  S.  864;  People  v. 
Patrick,  182  N.  Y.  131,  74  X.  E.  843; 
Brennan  r.  Glennon,  44  App.  Div.  107, 
60  N.  Y.  S.  643 ;  Kitz  r.  Buckmaster, 
45  App.  Div.  283,  61  N.  Y.  S.  64; 
People  r.  Freemaii,  133  App.  Div.  630, 
118  X.  Y.  S.  199;  Sullivan  V.  Franz- 
reb,  148  App.  Div.  728,  132  X.  Y.  S. 
1117. 

'North  Carolina. — State  r.  Smith, 
138  N.  C.  700,  50  S.  E.  859. 

Ohio.— Smart  v.  X.  C.  Lodge  Xo.  2, 
27  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  273. 

Oregon. — See  In  re  Young,  59  Ore. 
348,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  1310,  116  Pac. 
95,  1060. 

Pennsylvania. — Swayne  i".  Swaj'ne, 
19  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  160. 

Tennessee. — Ellis  v.  State,  92  Tenn. 
85,  20  S.  W.  500;  Henry  v.  Xubert, 
35  S.  W.  444. 

Tca?fls.— Flack  v.  Xeill,  26  Tex.  273; 
Simmons  Hardware  Co.  v.  Kaufman, 
77  Tex.  131,  8  S.  VV.  283;  Walker  v. 
State,  19  Tex.  App.  176;  Kahm  v. 
State,  30  Tex.  App.  310,  17  S.  W . 
416,  28   Am.  St.   Hep.  911. 

Utah. — State  r.  Snowdcii,  2.')  I 'tali 
318,  65   Pac.  479. 

Vermont . — Earie  r.  Grout,  46  Vt. 
113;  Tapliii  r.  Marcy,  81  Vt.  428,  71 
Atl.  72. 

licfore  h'ln pini/mrnt. — An  attorney 
at  law  i.s  a  coinpcti'iit  witness  as  to 
wliat  oi-ciinrd  \slicii  ;i  iiiishand  orig- 
inally di'|M)>iti'(|  lidtiils  ill  n  Mit'c  di'- 
posit  \;iiilt   ii'iiti'il  \,y  him  lOr  his  wit'i-, 


where  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  did  not  then  subsist  between 
the  husband  and  the  witness;  and, 
where  he  was  thereafter  employed  as 
counsel  for  both  husband  and  wife,  he 
may  testify  as  to  conversations  which 
took  place  in  the  presence  of  both. 
Leitch  V.  Diamond  X'^at.  Bank,  234  Pa. 
St.  557,  83  Atl.  416. 

Relation  Terminated. — Where  the 
relation  of  attorney  and  client  had 
terminated  when  the  attorney  re 
ceived  a  letter  from  his  former  client 
with  reference  to  decedent's  estate, 
the  attorney  was  not  disqualified  to 
testify.  In  re  Y'oung,  59  Ore.  348, 
Ann  Cas.  1913B  1310,  116  Pac.  95, 
rehearing  denied  59  Ore.  362,  Ann. 
Cas.  1913B  1316,  116  Pac.  1060. 

5  Brown  v.  Matthews,  79  Ga.  1,  4 
S.  E.  13. 

6  Under  the  loiia  statute  it  has 
been  held  that  the  relation  of  at- 
torney and  client  need  not  necessarily 
exist  to  render  a  confidential  com- 
munication privileged.  It  matters 
not  from  whom  the  communication  is 
received,  if  it  is  made  to  a  practicing 
attorney  in  liis  professional  capacity, 
and  necessary  for  him  to  discharge 
the  functions  of  his  ofiice.  State  r. 
Houseworth,  91  la.  740,  60  N.  W. 
221  ;  State  r.  Swafl'ord,  98  la.  362,  67 
X.   \V.  284. 

7  Randol])h  v.  Quidnick  Co.  23  Fed. 
278. 

\^'ll(•n'  tliree  jici'sons  were  indicted 
for  coiispiiacy.  it  w:is  iiclil  that  state- 
ments  made  h\'   one  of  tlieni   to  coun- 


102] 


PEIVILEGED    OOMMUXICATIONS. 


177 


tions  made  by  a  party  to  one  who  generally  acted  as  his  attorney, 
but  who,  at  the  time  the  statements  were  made,  was  acting-  as 
attorney  for  other  persons,  are  not  privileged.*  So,  also,  it  has 
been  held  that  the  privilege  does  not  extend  to  communications 
made  by  a  nominal  party  to  the  suit,  who  has  no  interest  in  it 
or  control  over  it.^  But  wherever  husband  and  wife  have  distinct 
interests,  and  the  wife  is  induced  in  dealing  with  those  interests  to 
act  under  the  advice  of  an  attorney  employed  and  paid  by  the  hus- 
band, the  attorney  must  be  deemed  to  act  as  the  attorney  of  both 
husband  and  wife,  and  the  communications  of  the  wife  to  such  at- 
torney will  be  entitled  to  privilege  from  disclosure,^"  and  either 
spouse  would  have  the  right  to  call  for  the  protection,  and  also  a 
full  inspection,  of  all  documents  that  should  come  into  the  posses- 
sion of  the  attorney,  during  such  employment,  relating  to  the 
transactions  and  to  the  advice  given  the  wife.^^ 

§  102.  Communications  between  Attorney  and  Client's 
Agent,  or  between  Associate  Counsel.  —  Communications  be- 
tween counsel  for  the  same  party  touching  the  subject-nuitter  of 


sel  for  anotlicr,  who  was  not  the  h'gal 
adviser  of  the  person  making  the 
statement,  were  not  privileged  com- 
mvmications,  although,  after  they 
were  made,  there  was  some  talk  of 
his  heconiing  also  counsel  for  the  one 
making  tlie  statement,  but  no  sucli  re- 
lation was  ever  established  between 
them.  Lanasa  c.  State,  109  Md.  602, 
71    Atl.  1058. 

An  attorney  who  represented  de- 
fendant's Inisband  on  a  charge  of  lar- 
ceny made  by  her  against  him  is  not 
incompetent  to  testify,  in  the  prose- 
cution of  defendant  for  the  murder  of 
her  husband,  as  to  conversations  be- 
tween the  defendant  and  her  husband 
occurring  in  the  attorney's  olllce, 
since  he  in  no  way  represented  de- 
fendant. State  r.  Cuuunings,  189 
Mo.  62«,  88  S.  \V.  706. 

8  Wilson  r.  Godlove.  34  Mo.  337. 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 12. 


9  Allen  V.  Harrison,  30  Vt.  210.  73 
Am.  Dec.  302. 

lOWarde  r.  Warde,  3  Macn.  &  G. 
(Eng.)    36.5,  1  Sim.  N.  S.  18. 

On  the  trial  of  an  action  brought 
by  a  married  woman  to  recover  pos- 
session of  her  separate  real  estate 
from  her  vendee,  a  witness  may  not, 
over  her  objection,  detail  a  conver- 
sation had  with  her  by  him  as  the  at- 
torney of  her  husband  in  relation  to 
the  sale  of  certain  personal  property 
purchased  with  money  derived  from 
the  sale  of  such  real  estate.  In  such 
case  the  attorney  will  be  regarded  as 
tlie  attorney  of  both  the  husband  and 
wife.  Scranton  V.  Stewart,  52  Ind. 
68. 

11  Scranton  r.  Stewart,  supra  ; 
Warde  r.  Warde,  3  Macn.  &  G.  (Eng.) 
365,  1  Sim.  N.  S.  18, 


178  TRIVILEGEU    COJIMUXICATIONS.  [§    102 

the  litigation  are  privileged. ^'^  So,  also,  eommimieations  between 
an  attorney  and  the  agent  of  his  client  are  entitled  to  the  same  pro- 
tection from  disclosnre  as  those  passing  between  attorney  and  client 
directly,^'  even  though  made  merely  with  a  view  of  establishing 
the  relation  and  securing  professional  aid  for  the  principal.^*  Thus 
statements  made  to  an  attorney  by  one  who  was  necessarily  em- 
ployed by  the  client  to  act  as  interpreter  in  stating  the  client's 
case  to  the  attorney,  are  within  the  protection  of  the  rnle.^^ 
Bnt  communications  made  by  an  agent  are  not  privileged  as  be- 
tween the  agent  and  the  attorney,  and  with  the  client's  consent 
the  attorney  may  testify  to  them ;  ^^  nor  are  such  communications 
privileged  as  between  the  agent  and  his  principal  in  a  suit  between 
them,  because  in  such  case  the  communications  cannot  be  said  to 
be  confidential. ^^  To  be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  rule  the 
agency  must,  of  course,  be  shown  to  exist;  ^*  and  the  communica- 
tion must  be  made  with  a  view  of  employing  the  attorney  on  behalf 
of  the  principal,  or  after  he  has  been  employed.  The  inhibition 
does  not  extend  to  communications  between  the  attorney  and 
persons  having  social  or  business  relations  wnth  the  client.^^  A 
mere  witness  in  the  cause  is  not  the  agent  of  the  litigant  in  any 
sense ;  and,  therefore,  his  communications  with  the  litigant's  attor- 
ney are  not  privileged,^"  even  though  such  witness  is  a  scientist 
called  to  testify  as  to  the  result  of  his  experiments.      To  hold 

12  ]\Iont<romery   V.  Perkins,  94  Fed.  Statements  of  a  wife,  made  as  her 

23;    Jones  c  Nantaliala   Marble,  etc.,  Imsband's   agent  to  his  attorney,  are 

Co.,    1.37    y.    C.    237,    4!)    S.    E.    94;  not  privileged  in  a  subsequent  action 

Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  \\illianis,  43  against  her  where  the  husband  Maives 

Tex.  Civ.  App.  549,  96  S.  W.  1087.  the  privilege.     Leyner  r.  Leyner,  123 

18  Fayerweatlicr    r.    Tviteh.    90    Fed.  la.  IS.",.  9S  X.  W.  628. 

13;    State    r.    i;<'ll,   212    Mo.    Ill,    111  17  Frank   r.  Morley,  100  Mieli.  03.j, 

S.  \V.  24:  Hernandez  r.  State,  18  Tex.  04   \.  W.  .-)77. 

.■\pp.   134.  .51   Am.  Kep.  29.5;   Rosebud  18  IVople  r.  Heart.   1   Cal.  Ai)]^   100, 

r.  State,  50  Tex.  Crim.  475,  98  S.  W.  81  Pac.  1018;  Com.  r.  I5e,st,  ISO  Mass. 

858:   S(dden   r.  State,  74  Wis.  271.  42  492.  02  X.  E.  748. 

N.  W  .  21.S.   17  Am.  St.   Kep.   144.  19  People  r.  Heart.  1   Cal.  App.  166. 

14  llawcs  /■.  State.  88  .Ma.  37,  7  So.  81    l>ac.    KIIS:    llaulenbeek   r.   McGib- 

.■;(I2.  boil,  00   lliin  2(i.  20  Civ.  Pro.  406,  14 

16  Miias  r.   I{]oeli,  7   Tnd.  202.  \.  \.  S.  393. 

16  iJiiigliam    r.   Walk,    128  Jnd.    101.  20  Labuiee.  etc..   Mfg.  Co.  r.   Haber- 

27    \.    !•;.   4M:i.  man   Mfg.  Co..  S7    l'"ed.  503.      See  also 


I 


§   103] 


PRIVILEGED    COM    lUNICATIONS. 


179 


that  such  eommrinicatioiis  wore  privilo2,ed  might  verv  well  open 
the  door  to  gross  abuses.^  The  conniuinications  of  an  expert  who 
acts  as  the  agent  of  the  litigant  in  aiding  counsel  to  conduct  the 
cause  are,  of  course,  privileged ;  ^  it  would  seem,  however,  that  in 
such  case  the  privilege  is  lost  when  the  expert  allows  himself  to 
be  made  a  witness,  at  least  to  the  extent  to  which  he  testifies.' 

§  103.  Attorney  Acting  as  Scrivener  or  Notary  Public. — 
Where  an  attorney  is  employed  merely  to  put  in  legal  form  and 
phrase  certain  documents  or  agreements  of  the  parties,  the  fact 
that  he  is  skilled  in  the  law  will  not  make  him  incompetent  as  a 
witness,  nor  can  the  communications  made  by  the  parties  to  hiin 
be  considered  as  privileged,'*  and  this  is  especially  true  if  all  the 


Ford  V.  McLanc.  131  Mich.  371,  9J  N. 
\V.  617,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N.  349. 

Wliere  a  witness  on  cross-examina- 
tion has  denied  that  she  had  discussed 
the  nature  of  her  testimony  witli  the 
counsel  for  the  party  who  called  her, 
the  attorney  himself  may  he  called 
and  compelled  to  state  whether  she 
did  tell  him  the  nature  of  her  testi- 
mony. Bergmann  v.  Manes,  141  App. 
Div.  102.  125  N.  Y.  S.  973. 

1  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  TTabor- 
man  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Fed.  503. 

2  Patent  Litigation. — It  is  quite 
conceivable  tluxt  a  patent  may  be 
owned  by  a  corporation  wliich  would 
be  the  actual  party  litigant,  but  the 
entire  management  of  its  afl'airs 
touching  the  use  of  such  patent,  and 
the  taking  of  whatever  steps  may  be 
necessary  to  sustain  it  and  prevent 
infringement,  be  confided  to  some  gen- 
eral manager  or  superintendent, 
skilled  in  the  art,  upon  whose  judg- 
ment solely  the  officers  of  the  corpora- 
tion miglit  be  accustomed  to  rely  in 
deciding   whether   they    should   prose- 


cute an  action  or  refrain  from  doing 
so,  and  be  the  sole  one  finally  to  de- 
termine upon  what  lines  and  to  wliat 
extent  the  litigation  should  be  con- 
ducted. Jn  sucli  a  ease  the  expert 
would  be  in  reality,  so  far  as  litiga- 
tion upon  tlie  particular  patent  was 
concei'iied,  the  alter  ego  of  the  com- 
plainant; and  the  privilege  whic'i 
public  policy  secures  to  the  individual 
litigant  could  not  be  secured  to  the 
corporation  litigant  unless  it  was  so 
extended  as  to  include  him.  So,  too, 
questions  of  science  and  art  are  fre- 
quently so  mingled  with  questions  of 
patent  law,  in  controversies  arising 
upon  some  patent,  that  a  party  sub- 
stantially retains  an  expert  to  con- 
duct the  case  almost  as  associate 
counsel  with  the  solicitor.  In  sueli  a 
case  it  would  seem  fair  to  apply  the 
same  rule  to  the  expert  as  to  the 
counsel.  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Haberuian  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Fed.  oG3. 

3  Lalance,   etc.,  Mfg.  Co.   v.  Haber- 
man  Mfg.  Co.,  87  Fed.  563. 

'i  California. — Delger   v.   Jacobs,   19 
Cal.  App.  197.  125  Pac.  258. 


ISO 


PRIVILEGED    COMMU2vICATIONS. 


[§   10^ 


parties  are  present  when  the  statements  are  made.^  A  convey- 
ancer is  not  a  legal  adviser;  and  the  relation  of  client  and 
eonusel  does  not  in  any  proper  sense  arise  between  convey- 
ancers and  those  who  employ  them,  and  hence  commimications 
made  to  conveyancers  are  not  privileged,®  even  though  sncli  con- 
veyancer is  counsel  for  one  of  several  parties  who  employ  him.' 
This  rule  has  been  applied  to  the  drawing  of  deeds,®  mortgages.^ 
and  agreements.^"  But  if  an  attorney  at  law  is  employed  as  such, 
the  mere  fact  that  a  part,  or  even  all,  of  the  business  for  which  he 
was  engaged  consists  of  drawing  documents,  or  other  papers,  would 
not  make  him  simply  a  scrivener,  nor  would  communications  made 
to  him  under  such  conditions  be  any  the  less  privileged ;  ^^  and  it 
has  been  so  held  as  to  attorneys  employed  to  draw  proofs  of  loss 


Colorado. — ifachette  r.  Wanless,  2 
Colo.  1G9;  Caldwell  r.  Davis,  10  Colo. 
481,  15  Pac.  690,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  599. 

r;a7.c fa.— O'Neill  r.  Murry,  6  Dak. 
107,  50  N.  W.  G19. 

(leorgin. — Corbett  r.  Gilbert,  24 
Ga.  454. 

Illinois.— Di-  \\o\i  v.  Strader,  26 
III.  225,  79  Am.  Dec.  371;  Smitli  v. 
Long,  106  111.  485;  Spencer  v.  Razor, 
251  111.  278,  90  X.  E.  300. 

Indiana. — Hanlon  c.  Doherty,  109 
hid.  37,  9  N.  E.  782:  Thomas  r.  Grif- 
liii,  1  Ind.  App.  457,  27  X.  E.  754; 
Alien  r.  lloljonbachcr,  97  X.  E.  817. 

/oita.— Wylaiid  r.  Griditli,  96  la. 
24.  64  X.  W.  673;  :Mueller  r.  Batche- 
ler,  131  Ta.  650,  109  X.  W.  186. 

.Michif/an. — Dikeman  v.  Arnold,  78 
:Mich.  455,  44  N.  W.  407. 

Minnesota. — Hanson  v.  Bean,  51 
Minn.  546,  53  X.  W.  871,  38  Am.  St. 
Rep.  516. 

Montana. — Siiiitli  c.  Caldwell,  22 
-Mont.  331,  56  I'ac.  590. 

Xf'.hrasha. — O'Connor  v.  Pad^^'t,  82 
Neb.  95,  116  X.  W.  1  131. 

?\'cio  York. —  \;iii  Alstyne  r.  Smilli, 
82   Hun  382,  ."il    \.   \.  S.   ■J77,    In    re 


Bellis.   38  How.   Pr.   79,   3   Fed.    Cas. 
No.  1,274. 

Texfls.— Childress  v.  Tate,  148  S. 
\\.  843. 

5  Greer  r.  Greer.  58  Hun  251,  20 
Civ.  Pro.  71,  12  X.  Y.  S.  778.  See 
also  infra  §  117. 

6  In  re  Matthews,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep. 
149,  4  Am.  L.  J.  356,  1  Phila. 
292,  9  Leg.  Int.  11.  See  also  infra 
§  107. 

7  Dikeman  v.  Arnold,  78  Mich.  455, 
44  N.  W.  407. 

8  Conklin  r.  Dougherty,  44  Ind. 
App.  570,  89  N.  E.  893;  Conway  r. 
Rock,  139  la.  162,  117  N.  W.  273: 
Sommer  v.  Opjienheim,  19  Misc.  605, 
44  X.  Y.  8.  396. 

9  Hatton  r.  Robinson.  14  Pick. 
(Mass.)  416,  25  Am.  Dec.  415; 
Woodruir  /•.  Ilurson.  32  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
557. 

10  Sparks  r.  Sparks,  51  Kan.  195, 
32  Pac.  892. 

11  Hollenback  r.  Todd,  M9  111.  543, 
8  X.  E.  829;  Pha-nix  Ins.  Co.  v.  Win 
tersmith.  98  X.  W.  987.  30  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
369;  Watson  r.  Young,  30  S.  C.  144, 
S  S.  E.  706. 


§    104]  nnVILEGED    COMMUXICATIOISrS.  181 

under  a  policy  of  fire  insurance/^  an  assignment  of  a  mortgage,^' 
and  deeds. ^*  A  eonminnieation  to  a  jjerson  acting  merely  as  a 
notary  public  is  not  privileged.^®  although  he  had  previously  acted 
as  attorney,  with  respect  to  other  matters,  for  the  party  making  the 
statements  to  him.^^ 

§   104.  Communications     to     Prosecuting     Attorneys. — 

Statements  made  to  a  prosecuting  attorney  or  his  assistants  in  their 
official  capacity,  for  the  purpose  of  originating  or  forwarding  a 
judicial  proceeding  for  bringing  an  offender  to  justice,  are  privi- 
leged.^' Public  policy  requires  that  a  person  in  making  such  com- 
munications should  be  at  liberty  to  make  them  without  fear  of  dis- 
closure.^® The  interest  of  the  public  in  protecting  the  privacy  of  a 
communication  seems,  indeed,  greater  when  it  is  made  to  a  prose- 
cuting officer  in  that  capacity  than  when  it  is  made  by  a  client  to  his 
attorney.  Persons  having  knowledge  regarding  the  commission 
of  a  crime  ought  to  be  encouraged  to  reveal  to  the  prosecuting  at- 
torney fully,  freely,  and  unreservedly,  the  source  and  extent  of 
their  information.  The  possibility  that  what  they  say  under  such 
circumstances  will  be  used  against  them  would  tend  to  impose  a 
natural  restraint  upon  their  conduct  and  to  deprive  the  officer  of 
the  benefit  of  their  services.^^     So,  also,  it  has  been  held  that  a 

l2Hclbig   V.    Citizens    Ins.    Co.    108  le  Aultman   r.   Daggs,  50  Mo.  App. 

111.  App.  024.  -'80. 

i3Getzlaff  V.  Seliger,  43  Wis.  -297.  17  Oliver  r.  Pate.  43  Ind.  132;  State 

i4Robson   V.  Kemp,  4  Esp.    (Eng.)  '"•  Houseworth,  91  la.  740,  60  N.  W. 

235,  5  Esp.  52;  Cromack  v.  Heatlicote,  '^^l;  State  V.  Swafford,  98  la.  302,  67 

2  Brod.  &  B.  4,  6  E.  C.  L.  12,  4  Moo.  ^-  W-  284;   Gabriel  r.  McMullin,  127 

r-    T>^    Q"     T.1        ■      1         r-      .,    w;-  la.   426,   103   N.   W.   355;    Michael   v. 

C.  PI.   6Di  ;   Phijenix  Ins.  Co.  V.   Win-  ' 

Matson,   81   Kan.  360,  105  Pac.  537; 


tersmith,  98  S.  \V.  987,  30  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  369;  Barry  v.  Coville,  53  Hun 
620,  7  N.  Y.  S.  36;  Parker  r.  Carter, 
4  Munf.    (Va.)   273,  6  Am.  Dec.  513. 


Sehultz    r.   Strauss.   127  Wis.   325,   7 
Ann.  Gas.  528,  100  X.  W\  1066. 

18  Oliver  v.  Pate,  43  Ind.  132;   Ga- 
briel  V.   McMullin,   127    la.   426,   103 
ISLukin  r.  Halderson,  24Ind.  App.       j^._    ^y    355.    j^-^j^^^j    ,.     ^i^tson,    81 

045,  57  N.  E.  254;  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.       j^^^   350,  i05  Pac.  537. 

V,  Corey,  54  Hun  493,  7  X.  Y.  S.  939,  19  state     v.     Blydenburg,     135     la. 

affirmed  135  N.  Y.  326,  31  N.  E.  1095;       264,  14  Ann.  Cas.  443,  112  N.  W.  634; 

Houx  r.  Blum,  9  Tex.  Civ.  App.  588,      Michael  i\  Matson,  81   Kan.  360,  105 

29  S.  W.   1135.  Pac.  537. 


182 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNIC  AXIOMS. 


[§  104 


prosecuting  attorney  cannot  testify  as  to  statements  made  to  him 
by  a  prisoner  on  an  application  to  be  allowed  to  give  evidence  for 
the  state.^  And,  of  course,  statements  made  to  one  as  private  coun- 
sel, and  not  as  an  officer,  would  be  none  the  less  privileged  because 
the  counsel  so  consulted  was  a  prosecuting  attorney,^  or  was  em- 
ployed for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  a  criminal  prosecution.' 
The  immunity  from  the  disclosure  of  cf;mmunications  made  to 
a  prosecuting  officer  is  a  privilege  personal  to  the  person  making 
them,  and  is  not  waived  by  his  voluntarily  testifying  generally,  in 
an  action  against  him  for  malicious  prosecution,  in  his  own  be- 
half,^ but  such  privilege  is  waived  if,  being  a  witness  in  his  own 
behalf,  he  voluntarily  discloses  what  statements  he  made  to  the 
prosecuting  attorney,  who  then  may  testify  in  relation  to  the  com- 
munication.^ So,  also,  a  witness  who  denies  statements  made  by 
him  to  the  prosecuting  attorney  may  be  contradicted  by  that  offi- 
cer.® In  some  states  it  has  been  held  that  communications  made  to 
the  prosecuting  attorney  are  not  privileged,  the  theory  being  that 
such  officer  is  not  counsel  for  those  who  consult  him  in  his  official 
capacity ;  '  but  even  those  authorities  concede  that  there  are  cases 
where  communications  made  in  confidence  to  a  public  prosecutor 
in  relation  to  the  commission  of  a  crime,  would  fall  within  the 
rule.*   It  has  also  been  held  that  the  evidence  of  a  witness  before  a 


1  state  V.  Phelps,  Kirby  (Conn.) 
282. 

Admissions  of  guilt  made  by  t'lie 
defendant  to  tbe  assistant  state's  at- 
torney to  procure  a  discontinuance  of 
tlie  prosecution  are  not  privileged  as 
eoniniunicatious  between  attorney  and 
client.  State  r.  Scliumacher,  21  N. 
D.  5!)1,  132  X.  W.  ]43. 

2  State  V.  Blydenburg,  1.3.5  la.  264, 
14  .Ann.  Cas.  443,  112  N.  W.  034. 

3  i'inson  r.  Campbell,  124  IMo.  App. 
260,  101    S.  W.  02!. 

4  Oliver  /•.    !':i1r,  4.'.   Iiul.    132. 

5  Oliver  r.  I'at.',  43  Iiid.  1.32.  See 
also  infin,   S§   130,   131. 

estate  /•.   Hasli.    (Del.)   7S  Atl.  40;"). 
7  Pcopb-   ;•.   |J;ivis,  52   Mirli.   5(il),    18 


N.  W.  302 ;  Cole  v.  Andrews,  74  ^Minn. 
93,  70  N.  W.  962;  Meyscnberg  r.  En- 
gelke,  18  Mo.  App.  340;  Cobb  r.  Si- 
mon, 119  Wis.  597,  97  N.  VV.  276,  100 
Am.  St.  Rep.  909.  See  also  Lange  v. 
Perley,  47  Micb.  352,  11  N.  W.  193, 
wberein  it  appears  tbat  the  county 
attorney  obtained  his  information  as 
a  member  of  a  committee,  and  not  con- 
fidentially. 

8  Cole  r.  Andrews,  74  Minn.  93.  76 
N.  W.  962. 

In  People  v.  Davis.  52  Mich.  569, 
IS  N.  W.  362,  it  was  said:  "Wc  are 
not  called  upon  in  this  case  to  con- 
sider whether  there  may  not  be  cases 
in  which  the  prosecuting  attorney 
wimld    be  excused,    in    the    intei'est    of 


105] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


IbD 


grand  jury,  given  in  the  hearing  of  the  prosecnting  attorney  during 
the  investigation  of  an  alleged  crime,  is  not  a  privileged  communi- 
cation to  such  attorney ;  ^  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  attorney  for  the 
state  not  to  divulge  what  passes  in  the  grand  jury  room  unless 
he  is  required  so  to  do  in  a  court  of  justice,^"  There  is  no  rela- 
tion of  attorney  and  client  between  the  defendants  in  a  prosecu- 
tion for  criminal  libel  and  the  prosecuting  officer,  so  as  to  exclude 
evidence  of  such  officer  as  to  communications  falsely  charging  a 
third  person  with  crime, ^^ 

§  105.  Communications  to  Attorney  Representing  Two  or 
More  Persons.  —  When  two  or  more  clients  emi)loy  the  same 
attorney  in  the  same  business,  communications  made  by  them  in 
relation  to  such  business  are  not  privileged  inter  sese ;  ^^  nor  are 


the  state,  from  disclosing  what  had 
been  told  to  him  with  a.  view  to  the 
commencement  of  criminal  proceed- 
ings. There  would  be  strong  reasons 
in  many  cases  why  the  counsel  of  the 
state  should  be  inviolably  kept." 

9  State  V.  Van  Euskirk,  .59  Ind.  384. 

10  Clark  V.  Field,  12  Vt.  485. 
"State  17.  Wilcox,  90  Kan.  80,  132 

Pac.  982. 

^2  England. — Tugwell  v.  Hooper.  10 
Beav.  348,  16  L.  J.  Ch.  171;  Warde 
V.  Warde,  3  Macn.  &  G.  3G5,  21  L.  J. 
Ch.  90,  15  Jur.  759,  reversing  1  Sim. 
X.  S.  IS.  See  also  Atty.  Gen.  v. 
Berkeley,  2  Jac.  &  W.  291;  Baugh  v. 
Cradocke,  1  IM.  &  Rob.  182;  Cleve  r. 
Powel,  1  M.  &  Rob.  228;  Shore  v. 
Bedford,  5  M.  &  G.  271,  44  E.  C.  L. 
149,  12  L.  J.  C.  PI.  138;  Perry  v. 
Smith,  C.  &  M.  554,  41  E.  C.  L.  301, 
9  M.  &  W.  681;  Ross  v.  Gibbs,  L.  R. 
8  Eq.  522,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  61. 

Canada. — Holmes  v.  Matthews,  3 
Grant  Cli.  (U.  C.)   379. 

Alahama. — Parish  r.  Gates,  29  Ala. 
254. 

California. — Bauer's  Estate,  79  Cai. 


304,  21  Pac.  759;  Murphy  v.  Water- 
house,  113  Cal.  467,  45  Pac.  866,  54 
Am.  St.  Rep.  365;  Harris  c.  Harris, 
136  Cal.  379,  69  Pac.  23. 

Illinois. — Lynn  v.  Lyerle,  113  111. 
128;  Griffin  v.  Grillin,  125  111.  430,  17 
N.  E.  782;  Tyler  r.  Tyler,  126  111. 
525,  21  X.  E.  616,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  642. 

Indiana. — Hanlon  r.  Doherty,  109 
Ind.  37,  9  N.  E.  782;  Colt  r.  McCon- 
nell,  116  Ind.  249,  19  N.  E.  106.  Com- 
pare Bowers  r.  Briggs,  20  Ind.  139. 

Kentucky. — Rice  r.  Rice,  14  B.  Mon. 
417:  Smick  r.  Beswick,  113  Ky.  439, 
68  S.  W.  439;  Brogan  r.  Porter,  145 
Ky.  587,  140  S.  W.  1007;  Taylor  r. 
Roulstone,  60  S.  W.  867,  61  S.  W.  354, 
22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1515. 

Maryland. — Compare  Plunter  v 
Van  Bomhorst,  1  Md.  504. 

Massachusetts. — Thompson  c.  Cash 
man,  181  Mass.  36,  62  X.  E.  976. 

Michigan. — Cady  v.  ^^'alkor.  6u 
Mich.  157,  28  X.  W.  805,  4  Am.  St. 
Rep.  834.  See  also  Dikeman  r.  Ar- 
nold, 78  Mich.  455,  44  X".  W.  407; 
Frank  v.  Morley,  106  Mich.  635,  6i 
X^  W.  577. 


I6i 


PRIVILEGED    C0MMUXICAT10:N'S, 


[§   10^ 


siieli  communications  privileged  as  between  any  one  of  the  par- 
ties and  the  attornev,^^  It  is  the  secrets  of  the  client  which  affect 
Lis  right  that  the  law^  does  not  permit  the  attorney  to  divulge.^* 
By  selecting  the  same  attorney,  and  making  their  communica- 
tions in  the  presence  of  each  other,  each  party  waives  his  right  to 
place  those  communications  under  the  shield  of  professional  con- 
lidence.^^     But  the  reasoning  upon  which   this  exception  to   the 


Minnesota. — Shove  v.  Martine,  85 
Minn.  29,  88  X.  W.  254,  412. 

Missouri. — Oompare  Hull  v.  Lyon, 
27  Mo.  570. 

Xebraska. — Compare  Nelson  v. 
Becker,  .32  Xeb.  99,  48  X.  W.  962. 

Xevada. — Haley  f.  Eureka  County 
Bank,  21  Xev.  127,  26  Pac.  64,  12 
L.R.A.  815:  Livingston  f.  Wagner, 
23  Xev.  53,  42  Pac.  290.  See  also 
Gruber  v.  Baker,  20  X"ev.  453,  23  Pac. 
858,  9  L.R.A.  302. 

\eio  Jersey. — Gulick  v.  Gulick,  39 
X'.  J.  Eq.  516,  affirming  38  X.  J.  Eq. 
402. 

yew  York. — Britton  r.  Lorenz,  45 
X.  Y.  51  :  Hurlburt  r.  Hurlburt,  128 
X.  Y.  420,  28  X.  E.  651,  26  Am.  St. 
Rep.  482,  affirming  50  Hun  600  mem., 
2  X.  Y.  S.  317;  Doheny  V.  Lacy,  168 
X.  Y.  213,  61  X.  E.  255,  affirming  42 
App.  Div.  218,  59  N.  Y.  S.  724;  Sandi- 
ford  r.  Frost,  9  App.  Div.  55,  41  N. 
Y.  S.  103;  Holmes  v.  Bloomingdale, 
72  App.  Div.  627,  76  N.  Y.  S.  182; 
Sherman  r.  Scott,  27  Hun  331  ;  Hard 
c.  Ashley,  63  Hun  634  mem.,  18  X.  Y. 
S.  413,  affirmed  136  X^.  Y.  645,  32  X. 
E.  1015.  See  also  Whiting  v.  Barney, 
30  X.  Y.  330,  80  Am.  Dec.  385,  re- 
rrrsirtft  38  Barb.  393;  Rosenburg  r. 
IJosenburg,  40  Hun  91  ;  Matter  of 
Kckler,  126  Apji.  Div.  1!)9.  110  X.  Y. 
S.  650.  Com/i'irf  ^■at(•s  /'.  Olinsteil, 
56   X.  Y.   632. 

\ortli     C'lrdliiiii.  —  .Micliai'l     r.     Foil, 


100  X.  C.  178,  6  S.  E.  264,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  577 ;  Hughes  v.  Boone,  102  X.  C. 
137,  9  S.  E.  286:  Carey  v.  Carey,  108 
X.  C.  267,  12  S.  E.  1038. 

Oregon. — See  Minard  r.  Stillman, 
31  Ore.  164,  49  Pac.  976,  65  Am.  St. 
Rep.  815. 

Pennsylvania. — Goodwin  Gas  Stove, 
etc.,  Co's.  Appeal,  117  Pa.  St.  514.  12 
Atl.  736,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  696;  In  re 
Seip,  163  Pa.  St.  423,  30  Atl.  226,  43 
Am.  St.  Rep.  803;  Brown  r.  Moosic 
Mountain  Coal  Co.  211  Pa.  St.  579,  61 
Atl.  76;  Mitchell  c.  Mitcliell,  212  Pa. 
St.  62,  61  Atl.  570.  See  also  Hummel 
V.  Kistner,  182  Pa.  St.  216,  37  Atl. 
815;  Weaver's  Estate,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
516. 

South  Carolina. — Moffatt  r.  Har- 
din, 22  S.  C.  9:  Wilson  r.  Gordon,  73 
S.  C.  155,  53  S.  E.  79. 

Virginia. — See  Clay  v.  Williams,  2 
Munf.  105,  5  Am.  Dec.  453. 

West  Virginia. — Kirchner  v.  Smith, 
61  W.  Va.  434,  11  Ann.  Cas.  870,  58 
S.  E.  614. 

I3:\lina-.d  r.  Stillman,  31  Ore.  164, 
49   I'ac.  976,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  815. 

"Stone  r.  M inter.  111  Ga.  45,  36 
S.  E.  321,  50  L.R.A.  356. 

IS  California. — Gerety  c.  O'Sheclian 
9  Cal.  App.  447.  99  Pac.  545. 

ilcorgiii. — McLean  /•.  Chiik,  47  Cia. 
24:  liurnside  r.  Terry,  51  (!a.  18(i; 
Brown  c.  ^Matthews,  79  Ga.  1,  4  S.  E. 
13, 


105] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIOXS. 


1S5 


rule  is  based  does  not  cover  controversies  between  third  persons 
and  the  several  clients,  or  any  of  them ;  in  such  cases  the  com- 
munications made  to  their  common  attorney  are  entitled  to  the 
privilege  from  disclosure  afforded  by  the  rule.^^     Where  parties 


Illinois.— Sm\t\\  r.  Long.  106  111. 
485. 

Iowa. — Mueller  r.  Batcheler,  131 
la.  650,  109  X.  W.  186. 

Kansas. — Sparks  v.  Sparks,  51 
Kan.   195,  32  Pac.  892. 

Michigan. — Ewers  v.  White,  114 
Mich.  266,  72  X.  W.  184,  4  Detroit 
Leg.  X.  573. 

Nebraska. — David  Adler,  etc.. 
Clothing  Co.  v.  Hellman,  55  Xeb.  200, 
75  X.  W.  877. 

New  York. — Prouty  v.  Eaton,  41 
Barb.  409;  Sherman  r.  Scott,  27  Hun 
331 ;  Rosenburg  v.  Rosenburg,  40  Hvm 
91 ;  Matter  of  Hicks,  47  Hun  637 
mem.,  14  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  320;  Greer  r. 
Greer,  58  Hun  251,  20  Civ.  Pro.  71,  12 
X.  Y.  S.  778;  Brand  v.  Brand.  30 
How.  Pr.  193:  Brennan  v.  Hall,  131 
X.  Y.  160,  29  X.  E.  1009,  affirminci  60 
Hun  583  mem.,  14  X.  Y.  S.  804;  In 
re  Cunnion,  201  X.  Y.  123,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912A  834,  94  X.  E.  048;  Myers  v. 
Brick,  146  App.  Div.  197,  130  X.  Y. 
S.   910. 

ycrth  Carolina. — Atlantic,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  r.  Atlantic,  etc.,  Co.,  147  X.  C. 
368,  15  Ann.  Cas.  363,  61  S.  E.  185, 
125  Am.  St.  Rep.  550,  23  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)    223. 

Pcnnsijlrania. — McCune  r.  Scott, 
18  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  203;  Swayne  v. 
Swayne,   19  Pa.   Super.  Ct.  100. 

16  England. — Robson  v.  Kemp,  4 
Esp.  233:  Doe  r.  Seaton,  2  Ad.  &  El. 
171,  29  E.  C.  L.  02:  Rochefoucauld  v. 
Boustcad.  74  L.  T.  X.  S.  783.  See  also 
Chant  r.  Brown,  9  Hare  790;  Entho- 
ven    r.  Cobb,  2   De   G.  :M.   &   G.   632; 


Macfarlan  r.  Rolt,  L.  R.  14  Eq.  580, 
41  L.  J.  Ch.  649. 

United  States. — Liggett  v.  Glenn, 
51  Fed.  381,  4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C. 
A.  280,  reversing  47  Fed.  472.  (Uim- 
parc  Brown  r.  Grove,  80  Fed.  564.  42 
U.  S.  App.  508,  25  C.  C.  A.  044. 

Illinois. — See  De  Wolf  r.  Strader, 
20  111.  225,  79  Am.  Dec.  371. 

Indliinu. — Scranton  r.  Stewart,  52 
Ind.  08. 

Knnfias.  —  Compare  Sparks  v. 
Sparks,  51  Kan.  195,  32  Pac.  892. 

Louiniana. — Harking's  Succession, 
2  La.  Ann.  923. 

Massachtiselfs. — Xational  Bank  of 
Republic  v.  Delano,  177  Mass.  302,  58 
X.  E.  1079,  83  Am.  St.  Rep.  281. 

Michigan. — Compare  House  v. 
nouso.  01  Midi.  09,  27  X.  W.  858,  1 
Am.  St.  Rep.  570. 

Vissoiiri. — Gray  v.  Fox,  43  Mo. 
570,  97  Am.  Dec.  416. 

Xebraska. — Jahnke  v.  State,  08 
Xeb.  154,  94  X.  W.  158,  104  X.  W. 
154._  Compare  David  Adler,  etc.. 
Clothing  Co.  v.  Hellman,  55  Xeb.  200, 
75  X.  W.  877. 

Xerada. — Gruber  r.  Baker,  20  Xev. 
453.  23  Pac.  858,  9  L.R.A.  302. 

Xeio  TcrA-.— Root  r.  Wright,  84  X. 
Y.  72,  38  Am.  Rep.  495,  reversing  21 
Hun  344.  See  also  Utica  Bank  r. 
Mersereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528,  49  Am. 
Dec.  189;  Richards  r.  ]Moore,  00  Hun 
577  mem.,  14  X.  Y.  S.  851. 

Pennsylvania. — See  In  re  Seip,  163 
Pa.  St.  423,  30  Atl.  226,  43  Am.  St. 
Rep.  803.     Compare  McCune  v.  Scott, 


ISG 


PKIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  lOG 


having  diverse  or  hostile  interests  or  claims  which  are  the  snl>- 
ject  of  controversy,  unite  in  submitting  the  matter  to  a  common 
attorney  for  his  advice,  they  exhibit,  in  the  strongest  manner, 
their  confidence  in  the  attorney  consnlted.  The  law  encourages 
such  efi'pi'ts  for  an  amicable  arrangement  of  differences,  and  pub- 
lic policy  and  the  interests  of  justice  are  subserved  by  placing 
such  communications  under  the  seal  of  professional  confidence  to 
the  extent  at  least  of  protecting  them  against  disclosure  by  the  at- 
torney at  the  instance  of  third  parties.^'''  And  in  such  case  neither 
one  of  the  several  clients,  not  even  a  majority,  contrary  to  the 
expressed  will  of  the  others,  can  waive  the  privilege  so  as  legally  to 
justify  the  attorney  in  giving  testimony  in  relation  to  such  privi- 
leged communications.'^^ 


§  106.  Communications      to      Opponent's      Attorney. — 

The  rule  which  prohibits  the  disclosure  of  communications  be- 
tween attorney  and  client  has  no  application  to  statements  made 
by  a  party  or  his  agent  to  the  attorney  for  the  other  party.^^  iSTor 
does  the  privilege  extend  to  communications  between  the  solicitors 
of  opposite  parties ;  or  to  communications  made  by  a  party  to  a 
suit  to  his  attorney,  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  communicated 
to  the  ad^•erse  partv.^°     l>ut  even  though  an  attorney  represents 


]8  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  263;  Swayne  ;•. 
Swayni',  ]9  Pa.  Suikt  Ct.  160. 

Texas. — Harris  v.  Daugherty.  74 
Tex.  1,  11  S.  W.  921,  15  Am.  St.  Rep. 
812. 

Vertnont. — Compare  Allen  r.  Har- 
rison, 30  Vt.  219,  73  Am.  Dec.  302. 

Washinfiton. — llartncss  v.  Brown, 
21  Wasli.  {}')n,  59  J'ac  491.  Compare 
Stanley  /■.  Stanley,  27  Wasli.  :)70,  liS 
Pac.   ]«7. 

Wisconsin. —  Herman  r.  Sclilcsinurr, 
114  Wis.  3S2,  90  N.  \V.  4(;(),  91  Am. 
St.  Itcp.  922.  ('iiiiijiinc  Dunn  /'. 
.\nio.s.    14    Wis.    lOli. 

17  Root  /-.  Wriglit,  S4  N.  \.  72,  .'.S 
.\ni.    IIi|i.    19."),  rercrsirif/  21    linn  .311. 

18  Hull  r.  Lyon.  27  Mn.  .".7(i:  1  t  ira 
I'.ank      c.      .Mfrserfuii,     3      I'.aili.      (  h. 


(X.  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dec.  189;  Min- 
ard  r.  Stillman,  31  Ore.  164,  49  Pac. 
976,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.  815;  Plartness  r. 
Brown,  21  Wash.  655,  59  Pac.  491; 
Herman  r.  Sehlesinger,  114  Wis.  382, 
90  X.  W.  460.  91  Am.  St.  Rep.  922. 

19  :Murpliy  /•.  \\'aterhouse,  1 1 3  Cal. 
467,  45  Pac.  866,  54  Am.  St.  Rep. 
365;  Jolls  V.  Keegan,  4  Penn.  (Del.) 
21,  '}')  Ail.  340;  Tlu/mpson  r.  Wilson, 
29  (l.i.  539;  Gorhardt  V.  Tucker,  187 
Mo.  46,  85  S.  W.  552;  Bay  r.  Trus- 
<lell.  92  Alo.  App.  377:  Hughes  r. 
Kounc,   102  X.  ('.   137,  9  S.  K.  2.S(i. 

Communications  mailc  liy  an  as- 
signor to  tlie  attorney  of  tlie  assignee 
arc  not  privileged.  Hall  r.  I!i\ey,  84 
\  a.   790.   ()   S.    K.  21.'). 

20  j-.uiiisidc    /■.    Terrv,    51    (Ja.     lS(i; 


§  107] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUXICxi.TIONS. 


IS' 


one  of  the  parties  to  a  suit,  a  bona  fide  communication  to  liim 
by  the  other  party  with  a  view  to  his  employment  in  a  professional 
capacity  would  be  privileged.^  So  also  it  has  been  held  that 
the  privilege  extends  to  cases  where  the  attorney  of  one  party 
consents  to,  and  actually  does,  advise  the  opposing  party.^ 


§  107.  Employment  in  Profsssional  Capacity.  —  The  testi- 
mony of  a  witness  as  to  conversations  with  a  party  to  an  action 
cannot  be  excluded  merely  on  the  ground  that  the  witness  is  an 
attorney  at  law,  and  that  the  communication  was  confidential, 
unless  it  also  appears  that  he  was  the  attorney  for  the  party,  and 
that  the  communication  was  made  in  the  course  of  such  professional 
employment.^     It  is  the  consultation  between  attorney  and  client 


Scott  V.  Aultman  Co.,  211  111.  (512.  71 
N.  E.  1112,  103  Am.  St.  Rep.  215, 
affirming  113  III.  App.  581;  Thayer 
V.  McEwen,  4  111.  App.  410:  List  r. 
List,  82  S.  W.  446,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
691.    And  see  infra,  §  118. 

1  See  also  supra,  §  101. 

2  Bowers  r.  Briggs,  20  Ind.   139. 
^England. — Vvilliams    v.    Mudie,    1 

('.  &  P.  158,  11  E.  C.  L.  354:  Broad 
r.  Pitt.  3  C.  &  P.  518,  14  E.  C.  L.  423; 
]>rani\vell  v.  Lucas,  4  DowL  &  R.  307, 
2   B.  &  C.  745,  9  E.  C.  L.  233. 

ignited  States. — In  re  Cole,  8  Rep. 
105,  6  Fed.  Gas.  No.  2,975. 

Alahama. — ^State  v.  Marshall.  8 
Ala.  302;  Brazier  c.  Fortune,  10  Ala. 
510. 

California. — Satterlee  r.  Bliss,  36 
Cal.  489;  Carroll  v.  Sprague,  59  Cal. 
655;  George  r.  Silva,  68  Gal.  272,  9 
Pac.  257;  Sharon  r.  Sliaron,  79  Gal. 
633,  22  Pac.  26,  131. 

Connecticut. — Turner's  Appeal,  72 
Conn.  305,  44  Atl.  310. 

District     of     Columbia. — Oliver     V. 
Cameron,  1  MacArthur  &  M.  237. 
Mo.  546,  75  S.  W.  116. 

Georgia. — Turner     v.     Turner,     123 


Ga.  5,  50  S.  E.  969.  107  Am.  St.  Rep. 
76. 

Indiana. — Borum  r.  Fonts,  15  Ind. 
50;  Miller  r.  Palmer,  25  Ind.  App. 
357,  58  X.  E.  213,  81  Am.  St.  Rop. 
107. 

lou-a. — Pierson  r.  Steortz,  IMorr. 
136;  Reinhart  v.  Johnson,  62  la.  155, 
17  K  W.  452;  State  v.  Swafford,  98 
la.  362,  67  X.  \Y.  284. 

Kansas. — State  r.  Herbert,  63  Kan. 
516,  66  Pac.  235;  Grimshaw  r.  Kent, 
67  Kan.  463,  73  Pac.  92;  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  r.  Day,  68  Kan.  726,  75  Pac. 
1021. 

Massachusetts. — Hatton  r.  Robin- 
son. 14  Pick.  416,  25  Am.  Dec.  415. 

Missouri. — State   v.    Faulkner,    175 

Nebraska. — Brady  r.  State,  39  Xeb. 
529,  58  X.  W.  101;  Elliott  V.  Elliott, 
3  Xeb.  (unofficial)  Rep.  832,  92  X. 
W.  1006. 

Aeir  York. — ^Nlarsh  v.  Howe,  30 
Barb.  649;  Bogert  r.  Bogcrt,  2  Edw. 
399;  People  r.  Hess,  8  App.  Div.  143, 
40  N.  Y.  S.  486;  Mowell  r.  Van  Buren, 
77  Hun  569.  28  X.  Y.  S.  1035. 

Ohio. — Smart  v.  X.  C.  Lodge  Xo.  2, 
27  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  273. 


1S& 


PlUVlLECiED     COMMUXICATIO^^S. 


IJ  107 


which  is  privileged,  and  which  must  ever  remain  so,*  even  though 
the  attorney  after  hearing  the  preliminary  statement  should  de- 
cline to  be  retained  further  in  the  cause,  or  the  client  after  hear- 
ing the  attorney's  advice  should  decline  further  to  employ  him.^ 
The  test  or  rule  deducible  from  the  authorities  seems  to  be  that 
if  statements  of  fact  are  made  to  an  attorney  at  law  in  good  faith, 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  his  professional  guidance  or  opin- 
ion, they  are  privileged  ;  otherwise  they  are  not  privileged.^  The 
character  in  which  the  communications  are  made  and  received, 
and  not  their  relevancy  or  materiality,  must,  therefore,  decide 
whether  they  should  be  regarded  as  privileged  or  not.'''  The  rule 
has  no  reference  to  cases  where  abstract  legal  opinions  are  sought 
and  obtained  on  general  questions  of  law,  either  civil  or  criminal. 
In  such  cases  no  facts  are,  or  need  be,  disclosed  implicating  the 
party,  and  so  there  is  nothing  to  conceal  of  a  confidential  nature.* 
It  has  been  held  that  communications  are  not  privileged  where 
they  are  made  to  an  attorney  acting  merely  in  the  capacity  of  a 


Pennsylvania. — Jeanes  v.  Friden- 
herg,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J. 
05. 

Texas.— Flsick  v.  Neill,  26  Tex.  273; 
Hyman  v.  Grant,  102  Tex.  50,  112  S. 
W.  1042. 

Utah.—HtaU'  r.  Snowden,  23  Utah 
318,   65   Pac.   479. 

Vermont. — Dixon  v.  Parmelee,  2 
Vt.  185;  Earle  v.  Grout,  46  Vt.  113. 

4  Denver  Tramway  Co.  v.  OweiM,  20 
Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848:  Sheelian  r. 
Allen,  67  Kan.  712,  74  Pac.  245. 

Ihdifinfj  \fjid<iiifs. — A  communica- 
tion to  an  attorney  in  reference  to 
liis  client's  personal  estate,  made  up- 
on retaininj,'  him  to  draw  an  allidiivit 
f(n  llif  purpose  of  procuring  a  re- 
(hutiou  of  tlie  assessment  of  such  es- 
tate, is  privileged.  Williams  V,  Fitch, 
18  N.  Y.  546. 

Droiring  I'ctilion  for  Freedom. — 
.■\m  apiiliiMt  ion  to  ;in  attorney  at  law, 


by  a  colored  person,  to  draw  a  peti- 
tion to  the  legislature  for  his  free- 
dom, is  not  a  privileged  communica- 
tion between  attorney  and  client. 
Qiiare,  if  the  disclosure  had  been  of 
the  facts  upon  which  he  rested  his 
claim  to  freedom.  State  v.  Marshall, 
8  Ala.  302. 

5  See  supra,  §  101 . 

6  Denver  Tramway  Co.  v.  Owens,  20 
Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848;  Granger  r. 
Warrington,  8  111.  299;  Wade  v.  Rid- 
ley, 87  Me.  368,  32  Atl.  975. 

7  Aiken  r.  Kilbnrne,  27  Me.  252. 
Statements    uni'lr    by   an   applicant 

for  a  pension  to  one  acting  as  his  at- 
torney in  the  matter,  are  privileged 
communications.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Selby,  72  Fed.  980.  44  U.  S.  App. 
282,  19  C.  C.  A.  331. 

8  McMannus  v.  State,  2  Head 
(Tenn.)    213.     And  see  supra,  §   103. 


107] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUXICATIOXS. 


i8r> 


conveyancer,^  or  scrivener/"  or  attorney  in  faet,^^  or  agent. ^^  or 
as  a  friend. ■^^  Mere  casual  conversations  with  an  attorney,  and 
legal  advice  given  in  the  course  of  such  conversation  for  which 
compensation  was  neither  asked  nor  expected,  are  not  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  the  privilege,^*  even  though  they  have  reference 
to  matters  about  which  it  was  probable  there  would  be  litigation. ^^ 
To  constitute  professional  employment,  however,  it  is  not  essen- 
tial that  the  client  should  have  employed  the  attorney  profession- 
ally on  any  previous  occasion. ^^  An  attorney  is  employed  when 
he  is  listening  to  his  client's  preliminary  statement  of  his  case, 
or  when  he  is  giving  advice  thereon,  just  as  truly  as  when  he  is 
drawing  his  client's  pleadings  or  advocating  his  client's  cause 
in  open  court. ■^^  If  a  person,  in  respect  to  his  business  affairs  or 
troubles  of  any  kind,  consults  with  an  attorney  in  his  professional 
capacity  with  the  view  to  obtaining  professional  advice  or  assist- 
ance, and  the  attorney  voluntarily  permits  or  acquiesces  in  such 


9  Later  r.  Haywood,  12  Idaho  78,  8.5 
Pac.  494;  In  re  :\Iattl)c\vs,  5  Pa.  L.  J. 
Bep.  149,  4  Am.  L.  J.  356,  1  Phila. 
292,  9  Leg.  Int.  11;  Stallings  v. 
Hullum,  79  Tex.  421,  15  S.  W.  G77; 
Contra,  Brand  r.  Brand,  39  How.  Pr. 
193. 

10  See  sttpra,  §  103. 

11  Collins  V.  Johnson,  16  Ga.  458. 

12  Herman  r.  Schlesinger,  114  Wis. 
382.  90  X.  W.  460,  91  Am.  St.  Rep. 
922. 

An  attorney  employed  solely  to  pro- 
cure a  loan  for  a  client  acts  merely 
as  agent,  and  communications  between 
them  in  regard  to  the  loan  are  not 
privileged.  Turner  v.  Turner,  123  Ga. 
5,  50  S.  E.  969,  107  Am.  St.  Rep.  76; 
Lifschitz  r.  O'Brien,  143  App.  Div. 
180.  127  N".  Y.  S.  1001. 

^^  District  of  Columbia. — Patten  i. 
Glover,  1  App.  Cas.  466. 

Georgia. — O'Brien  r.  Spalding.  102 
Ga.  490,  31  S.  E.  100,  66  Am.  St.  Rep. 
202. 


Idaho. — Later  V.  Haywood,  12 
Idaho  78.  85  Pac.  494. 

Illiiiois.—GoUia.  v.  Wolcott,  14  111. 
89. 

Indiana. — McDonald  r.  McDonald, 
142  Ind.  55,  41  X.  E.  336. 

Kansas. — State  r.  Herbert,  63  Kan. 
516,  66  Pac.  235. 

Michigan. — Ewers  r.  White,  114 
Mich.  266,  72  N.  W.  184,  4  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  573. 

South  Carolina. — Branden  v.  Gow- 
ing,  7  Rich  L.  459. 

Vermont. — Coon  v.  Swan,  30  Vt.  6. 

i4Coker  r.  Oliver,  4  Ga.  App.  728. 
62  S.  E.  483 ;  In  re  Monroe,  2  Connoly 
395.  20  X.  A'.  S.  82 :  Titus  v.  Johnson, 
50  Tex.  224. 

15  Thompson  v.  Kilborne,  28  Vt.  750, 
67  Am.   Dec.  742. 

16  Denver  Tramway  Co.  v.  Owens, 
20  Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848. 

17  Denver  Tramway  Co.  r.  Owens, 
20  Colo.  107.  36  Pac.  848;  Evans  r. 
State,  5  Okla.  Crim.  643,  115  Pac.  809, 
34  L.R.A.(X.S.)   577. 


190 


PRTVILKGED    COMMUNICATIO^^S. 


[§  108 


consultation,  then  the  professional  eni])loyment  must  be  regarded 
as  established ;  and  the  communication  made  by  the  client,  or 
advice  given  by  the  attorney,  under  such  circumstances,  is 
privileged 


18 


§  108.  Judicial  Proceedings  Unnecessary. —  The  rule  as  to 
privileged  comnnuiications  extends  to  ever)'  statement  which  the 
client  makes  to  his  legal  adviser  for  the  purpose  of  professional 
advice  or  aid  given  upon  the  subject  of  his  rights  and  liabilities; 
it  is  not  essential  that  any  judicial  proceeding  in  particular  should 
have  been  commenced  or  contemplated.^^  Xor  is  it  material  that 
the  client  is  in  no  manner  before  the  court  where  the  disclosure 
is  sought  to  be  had.^°  It  is  enoug-h  if  the  matter  in  hand  may, 
by  possibility,  become  the  subject  of  judicial  inquiry,^^  and  the 
emplo^^mient  of  counsel  is  so  connected  with  his  professional  char- 
acter as  to  afford  the  presumption  that  this  formed  the  ground 
of  the  confidence  reposed,^  even  though  a  professional  person  may 
deem  the  communication  unimportant.^  Indeed,  the  advice  and 
assistance  of  counsel  are  in  many  instances  invoked  for  the  pur- 
pose of  more  certainly  guarding  against  litigation.^ 


IS  Deiivtr  Tramway  Co.  v.  Owens, 
20  Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848. 

IP  United  Htdtes. — Alexander  v.  U. 
S..  138  U.  S.  353,  11  S.  Ct.  350,  34 
L".  S.    (L.  ed.)    954. 

Alabama. — Parish  r.  Gates,  29  Ala. 
2.54. 

Colorado. — Denser  'I  lamway  Co.  V. 
Owens,  20  Colo.  107,  3H    Pac.  848. 

Illinois. —  Rogers  r.  Daniels,  110  111. 
App.   515. 

ladinnii. — Ronuti  /'.  l"o\its,  15  Ind. 
50;    Bigler   r.   Keyher,  43   Ind.    112. 

Kent  Itch)/. — Carter  f.  West,  93  Ky. 
211,  19  S.  V\.  .592. 

\ehrn.il:a.—iiri\(]y  r.  Stat.',  3!)  Xeh. 
529,  58  X.  W.  101. 

Xeir  York. — JJaodii  /'.  {''riKliie.  SO 
\.  \.  394,  ."iti  .Am.  Rep.  027,  rcveming 
15  I  lull  20. 


Pennsylvania. — Beltzlioover  v.  Black- 
stoek,  3  Watts  20,  27  Am.  Dec.  330; 
Jeanes  v.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep. 
199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

Wisconsin. — Dudley  r.  Beck,  3  Wis. 
274. 

20  Elliott  r.  U.  S.,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)   456. 

21  Rogers  r.  Daniels.  116  111.  \])p. 
515;  Johnson  v.  Sullivan.  23  Mo.  47-'. 

1  Foster  r.  Hall,  12  Pick.  (?kluss.) 
89,  22  Am.  Dec.  400;  Bacon  v.  Frisbie, 
80  N.  Y.  394,  36  Am.  Rep.  627,  rerer-i- 
ing  15  Hun  26;  Root  r.  Wright.  84 
N.  Y.  72,  38  Am.  Rep.  495,  rercrsinff 
21  Hun  344;  .Moore  V.  Bray,  10  Pa.  St. 
519;  .Icaiies  r.  Fridenberg.  .3  Pa.  L.  J. 
Keji.  r.tO,  5  Fa.  L.  J.  65. 

2  Moore   r.  Bray,  10   i'a.  St.  519. 

3  I'.it-ler  r.  Revher,  43  hid.  1  12. 


§   lOO] 


PR  1 VI  r.KG Kl)    CO M  M  U  N I C  ATIO IS,'  S. 


101 


§  109,  Payment  of  Retaining  Fee. — While  the  payment  of 
a  retainer  is  the  best  evidence  tliat  the  I'ehition  of  attorne_y  and 
clients  exists,*  sueh  payment  is  not  absolutely  essential.  If  an 
attorney  is  consulted  in  his  professional  capacity,  and  he  allows 
the  consultation  to  proceed,  and  acts  as  adviser,  the  fact  that  n(j 
compensation  was  paid  will  not  remo\e  the  seal  of  secrecy  from 
the  communications  made  to  him,^  even  if  the  consultation  ends 
without  establishing  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client;^  and 
this  is  true  although  the  client  employs  other  attorneys  in  the 
jirosecution  of  the  business,  and  even  where  the  lawyer  consulted 
is  afterwards  retained  on  the  other  side.'     It  is  enough  that  the 


1  Brown  v.  Matthews,  79  Ga.  1,  4 
S.  E.  13;  Harkless  v.  Smith,  115  Ga. 
;io(»,  41  S.  E.  6,34;  State  v.  Herbert,  63 
Kan.  516,  66  Pac.  235. 

5  United  Stales. — Alexander  V.  U. 
S.,  ]38  U.  S.  353,  11  S.  Ct.  350,  34 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  954. 

Arkansas. — Andre\\s  v.  Simms,  33 
Ark.  771. 

Colorado. — Denver  Tramway  Cc.  V. 
Owens,  20   Colo.   107,   30   Pac.   848. 

Indiana. — Bowers  c.  Briggs,  20  Tnd. 
139. 

Kansas. — Union  Pac.  E.  Co.  r.  Daj% 
68  Kan.  726,  75  Pac.  1021. 

Louisiana. — Bailly  v.  Roblca,  4 
Mart.  N.  S.  361. 

Michigan. — Mack  v.  Sharp,  138 
Mich.  448,  5  Ann.  Cas.  109,  101  N. 
W.  631,  11  Detroit  Leg.  N.  G40. 

Missouri. — Cross  v.  Riggins,  50  Mo. 
335. 

Montana. — Davis  v.  Morgan,  19 
Mont.  141,  47  Pac.  793. 

New  York. — March  v.  Ludkim,  3 
Sandf.  Ch.  35;  Bacon  v.  Frisbie,  80 
N.  Y.  394,  36  Am.  Rep.  627,  reversing 
15   Hun  26. 

Vermont. — Earle  v.  Grout,  46  Vt. 
113. 

Wisconsin. — Brulev   r.   Garvin,    105 


Wis.   625.   81  N.  W.  1038,  48   L.R.A. 
839. 

6  See  supra,  §  101. 

7  Cross  V.  Riggins,  50  ^lo.  335, 
wherein  it  was  said:  "The  present 
record  presents  the  question  whethei" 
one  who  seeks  counsel,  but  who  in  fact 
pays  no  fee.  and  employs  others  in 
the  prosecution  of  the  business — the 
counsel  consulted  being  afterwards 
employed  against  him — can  be  so  con- 
sidered as  a  client  that  his  conununi- 
cations  are  privileged.  1  know  not 
where  to  draw  a  distinction.  The 
rule  sliould  be  universal,  and  apply  to 
all  who  communicate  facts  expecting 
professional  advice,  or  it  will  fail  to 
answer  its  ends.  Its  limitations  may 
be  unknown  to  laymen,  and  without 
feeling  perfect  freedom  in  all  cases, 
instead  of  the  perfect  confidence  that 
should  exist  the  intercourse  might 
l)e  restrained  by  fear  and  marred  by 
dissimulation  on  the  part  of  tlie 
client,  and  the  object  of  the  rule  be 
defeated;  and  besides,  a  door  would 
be  opened  to  fraud.  One  might  seek 
advice,  expecting  not  only  to  pay  but 
to  retain  in  an  anticipated  litigation, 
and,  after  his  story  had  been  heard, 
the  retainer  might  be  declined  and 
the  information  be  used  against  him; 


iy2 


PKIvai.£GED    COMMUNICATIONS, 


[§   110 


attorney  was  applied  to  for  advice  or  aid  in  his  professional  char- 
acter,* the  legal  obligation  to  pay  a  quantum  meruit  being  in  this 
respect  as  effectual  a  retainer  as  an  actual  payment.^  In  like 
manner,  such  communications  from  clients  may  be  privileged 
although  the  counsel  neither  expects  nor  receives  a  fee ;  ^^  so, 
also,  a  communication  to  an  attorney  may  be  confidential  al- 
though the  party  making  the  communication  believes  that  an- 
other person,  also  interested  in  the  case,  is  to  pay  the  attorney.^^ 
The  practice  of  giving  advice  upon  legal  subjects  without  study 
and  examination,  and  without  corresponding  pay  and  a  distinct 
retainer,  is  certainly  a  vicious  one.  The  giving  of  advice  in  this 
way  misleads  the  general  opinion  in  regard  to  the  value  of  legal 
services.  It  would  no  doubt  be  better  for  the  profession,  and  their 
clients  both,  if  all  professional  advice,  in  regard  to  the  prosecu- 
tion and  defense  of  claims,  were  given  in  writing,  and  both  parties 
thereby  put  mider  proper  responsibility  in  regard  to  it,  the  one 
to  pay  for  it,  and  the  other  to  make  it  hold  good,  or  to  show,  at 
least,  that  it  was  not  notoriously  bad.^^ 

§  110,  Subject-Matter  of  Communication.  —  It  is  some- 
times said  that  all  communications  between  counsel  and  client 
are  privileged;  but  this  is  too  general,  and  is  inaccurate.  They 
must  relate  to  the  business  and  interest  of  the  client.  It  is  a  well- 
established  rule  that,  in  order  to  be  privileged,  a  communication 


also  an  obstacle  would  be  thrown  in 
the  way  of  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes. The  noblest  oflice  of  the  law- 
yer is  to  Ileal  dlHiculties,  and  far 
more  is  done  in  that  direction  in  the 
hi^'liei-  walks  of  tlie  profession  than 
is  loiowii  to  tiic  |)nb!ic.  in  !seei<ing 
this  end  counsid  may  receive  com- 
munications from  tile  opposite  party, 
and  not  made  under  circumstances 
that  would  exclud"  tlicm  as  jirojiosi- 
tioiis  to  coiiiproinisr.  'I'lir  conven- 
tionalities that  h((l;,'c  in  flic  lOiiLilish 
counselor  urc  unknown  in  tliis  <oun- 
trj',  and  jiublic  jxilicy  i('i|iiins  that 
jiersons  should  feid  tliat  t!ii'v  iiiu\  sc- 
curtdv    sav    an\tliiiii:    to    riiniilicis    of 


the  profession  in  seeking  aid  in  their 
diiViculties,  although  the  person  whose 
advice  they  seek  may  have  been  em- 
ployed, or  may  be  afterwards  em- 
ployed, ap;ainst  Jiini. 

8  Andrews   r.    Siinnis.    33    Ark.   771. 

9  Foster  r.  Hall,  V2  Pick.  (Mass.) 
89,  22  Am.  Dec.  400. 

10  Oliver  V.  Cameron,  1  IMacArtliur 
&  M.  (D.  C.)  237;  Evans  r.  State,  5 
Okla.  C'rim.  643,  115  Pac.  801),  34 
L.ll.A.(N.S.)    .'377. 

11  Hunter  V.  Van  Bomhorst.  1  Md. 
.')04. 

12  Thompson  r.  Kilborne,  28  Vt. 
750,  67   Am.  Dec.  742. 


§  110] 


TRIVILEGED    COMMUJs'ICATIONS. 


193 


must  be  made  solely  because  of  tlie  relation  of  attorney  and  client, 
and  in  order  to  procure  the  professional  advice  or  assistance  of 
the  attorney  in  relation  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  employment, 
or  to  explain  something  connected  with  it,  so  as  to  enable  the 
attorney  the  better  to  advise  the  client  or  to  manage  the  litiga- 
tion.^^ The  rule  is  not,  however,  confined  to  communications  made 
for  the  purpose  of  enabling  an  attorney  to  conduct  a  cause  in 
court;  nor  is  it  necessary  that  the  statement  of  the  client  should 


13  England. — Cobden  r.  Kendrick,  4 
T.  R.  432;  Wilson  r.  Rastall,  4  T.  R. 
753;  Turquand  v.  Kniglit,  2  M.  &.  W. 
98. 

United  States. — Chirac  v.  Reinicker, 
n   Wheat,  280,  6  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   474. 

Alabama. — Crawford  v.  McKissack, 
1  Port.  433 ;  State  V.  Marshall,  8  Ala. 
302. 

California. — Hager  v.  Shindler,  29 
Cal.  61;  Satterlee  v.  Bliss,  36  Cal. 
489;  Sharon  v.  Sharon,  79  Cal.  633, 
22  Pac.  26,  131;  Ferguson  v.  McBean, 
91  Cal.  63,  27  Pac.  518,  ]4  L.R.A. 
65. 

Georgia. — Collins  v.  Johnson,  16  Ga. 
458;  Watkins  v.  Smith,  17  Ga.  68; 
McDougald  v.  Lane,  18  Ga.  444;  Chur- 
chill V.  Corker,  25  Ga.  479;  Brown  v. 
Matthews,  79  Ga.  1,  4  S.  E.  13;  Skellie 
r.  James,  81  Ga.  419,  8  S.  E.  607; 
Philman  v.  Marshall,  103  Ga.  82,  29 
S.  E.  598. 

Illinois. — Granger  i\  Warrington,  8 
111.  309;  Goltra  V.  Wolcott,  14  111.  90; 
De  Wolf  V.  Strader,  26  111.  225,  79 
Am.  Dec.  371 ;  Champion  v.  McCar- 
thy, 228  111.  87,  10  Ann.  Cas.  517,  81 
N.  E.  808,  11  L.R.A.   (N.S.)    1052. 

Indiana. — Borum  v.  Fonts,  15  Ind. 
52;  Lloyd  v.  Davis,  2  Ind.  App.  170, 
28  N.  E.  232. 

Iowa. — Picrson  v.  Steortz,  Morr. 
136;  Sample  v.  Frost,  10  la.  266: 
State  V.  Mewherter,  46  la.  88;  State 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 13. 


V.  Stafford,  145  la.  285,  123  X.  W. 
167. 

Kaiisas. — In  re  Elliott,  73  Kan.  151, 
84  Pac.  750. 

Kentucky. — Denunzio  V.  Scholtz, 
117  Ky.  182,  4  Ann.  Cas.  529,  77  S. 
W.  715;  Bishoif  V.  Com.,  123  Ky.  340, 
96  S.  W.  538. 

Maine. — Wade  v.  Ridley,  87  Me. 
368,  32  Atl.  975. 

Massachusetts. — Hatton  v.  Robin- 
son, 14  Pick.  420,  25  Am.  Dec.  415. 

Michigan. — Lorimer  v.  Lorimer, 
124  Mich.  631,  83  N.  W.  609,  7  De- 
troit Leg.  X.  367;  People  v.  Pratt, 
133  Mich.  125,  94  N.  W.  752,  67 
L.R.A.  923. 

Nebraska.  —  David  Adler,  etc., 
Clothing  Co.  r.  Hellman,  55  Xeb.  266, 
75  X.  W.  877;  Elliott  v.  Elliott,  3 
Xeb.  (unofficial)  Rep.  832,  92  X.  W. 
1006. 

Xcir  Hampshire. — Brown  v.  Payson, 
6  X.  H.  443. 

New  York. — Mowell  i\  Van  Buren. 
77  Hun  569,  28  X.  Y.  S.  3  035;  Roch- 
ester City  Bank  v.  Suydam,  5  How. 
Pr.  254;  People  v.  Hess,  8  App.  Div. 
143,  40  X.  Y.  S.  486;  Clark  v.  Rich- 
ards, 3  E.  D.  Smith  89;  Marsh  v. 
Howe,  36  Barb.  649;  Bacon  v.  Fris- 
bie,  80  X.  Y.  394,  36  Am.  Rep.  627. 

North  Carolina. — Eekhout  r.  Cole, 
135  X.  C.  583,  47  S.  E.  655. 

Pennsylvania. — Levers  v.  Van  Bus- 


104 


PRIVILEGED    COMMU^'ICATJ()^'S. 


§     111 


have  been  made  for  the  express  purpose  of  getting  legal  advice. 
It  is  sufficient  if  it  is  a  statement  of  fact  made  in  the  course  of 
the  employment  and  material  thereto,  or  believed  to  be  so.^*  Nor 
is  the  circle  of  protection  so  narrow  as  to  exclude  communica- 
tions which  a  professional  person  may  deem  unimportant  to  the 
controversy,  or  the  briefest  and  lightest  talk  the  client  may  choose 
to  indulge  with  his  legal  adviser,  provided  he  regards  him  as  such, 
at  the  moment,  and  the  conversation  concerns  the  subject-matter 
<if  the  attorney's  employment. ^^ 


§  111.  Confidential  Character  of  Communication, — 
It  is  well  settled  that,  in  order  to  be  privileged,  a  communication 
must  be  one  which  is  made  to  the  attorney  in  confidence  for  the 
purposes  of  his  employment.  If  it  appears  by  extraneous  evi- 
dence, or  from  the  nature  of  the  transaction  or  communication, 
that  confidence  was  not  contemplated,  and  that  the  communication 
was  not  so  regarded,  then  the  fact  communicated  may  be  proved 
by  the  testimony  of  the  attorney. ^^     The  scope  of  the  confidence 


kirk,  4  Pa.  St.  309:  Moore  c.  Bray,  3  0 
Pa.  St.  524;  Matthew's  Estate,  1 
Phila.  292,  9  Leg.  Int.  11;  Weaver's 
Estate,  9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  516;  In  re  Cole, 
7  W.  N.  C.  114,  6  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,975. 

Texas. — Flack  c.  Neill,  26  Tex. 
27.3:  Ilciiderson  c.  Terry,  62  Tex. 
281  ;  Stailiiit^s  r.  Hullum,  79  Tex. 
421,  15  S.  W.  677.  See  also  Mcin- 
tosh r.  Moore,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  22, 
f);?  S.  W.  611:  Pearson  V.  State,  56 
Tex.   Crini.   607,    120   S.  W.  1004. 

Vermont. — Earle  v.  Crout,  46  Vt. 
113. 

Wisconnin. — Piano  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
iM-awley,  68  Wis.  577,  .32  N.  W.  768. 

14  l/i<r>r,.tt  r.  (;i(iin.  51  Fed.  381,  4 
r.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286,  revers- 
ing 47  Fed.  472;  National  Bank  of 
i;.  piihlic  r.  Dcdano.  177  Mass.  362,  58 
N.  K.  1079,  83  Am.  St.  Pep.  281.  See 
siij)r(t,  S  98  et  scq. 

15  Mcorc    r.    I?niv,    10    I'a.    St.   519, 


524:  Surface  v.  Bentz,  228  Pa.  St. 
610,  21  Ann.  Cas.  215,  77  Atl.  922. 

It  is  immaterial  that  the  advice  is 
so  simple  that  an  intelligent  layman 
could  have  given  it.  This  would  per- 
haps characterize  the  best  legal  ad- 
vice that  ever  was  given,  but  it  would 
be  legal  advice  none  the  less.  Peo- 
ple V.  Pratt,  133  Mich.  125.  94  N.  W. 
752,  67  L.R.A.  923.  See  also  supra, 
§  98  et  seq. 

^^  California. — liager  r.  Siiindler. 
29  Cal.  47;  Sharon  r.  Sharon,  79  Cal. 
633,  22  Pac.  26,  131. 

Connecticut. — Turner's  Appeal,  72 
Conn.  305,  44  Atl.  310. 

Idaho. — Ex  p.  Niday,  15  Idaho  559, 
98  Pac.  845. 

1mm. — SiiallVr  r.  Mink.  CO  la.  754, 
14  N.  W.  726;  State  r.  Swaflord,  98 
Ta.  362,  67  N.  W.  2S4. 

/\'«».sf;.s.--  Ill  rv  Klliott,  73  Kan.  151, 
84    i\ic.  750. 


§    112]  PRIVILEGED    OOM:\II'XICATIONS.  195 

is  as  the  scope  of  the  purpose ;  each  is  considered  to  be  the  exact 
measure  of  the  other.^'''  Tn  order  to  render  a  communication  be- 
tween attorney  and  client  ])rivileged,  it  must  relate  to  some  mat- 
ter about  which  the  client  is  seeking  advice,  or  be  made  in  order 
to  put  the  attorney  in  possession  of  information  supposed  to  be 
necessary  to  enable  him  properly  and  intelligently  to  serve  his 
client.^^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  communications  l)(^t\v(>en  at- 
torney and  client  concerning  an  indebtedness  of  the  client  to  the 
attorney  are  not  ordinarily  within  the  privilege. ^^  So,  also,  an 
attorney  may  give  evidence  of  collateral  facts,  as,  for  instance,  that 
his  client  expressed  himself  satisfied  with  a  new  security.^"  And 
where  an  attorney  has  received  money  which  he  is  to  hold  until 
the  question  of  its  ownership  shall  be  determined  between  the 
parties,  he  cannot,  in  a  proceeding  of  garnishment,  refuse  to  state 
where  he  has  deposited  the  money,  on  the  ground  that  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  matter  is  privileged.^ 

§  112.  Time  of  Making  Communication. — A  litigant  can- 
not ordinarily  be  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  the  evidence  of  his 
opponent's  attorney  as  to  information  acquired  by  such  attorney 
prior  to  his  retainer.^  A  different  rule,  however,  prevails  with 
respect  to  communications  made  to  an  attorney  with  a  bona  fide 

Kentucky. — Bishoft'     v.     Com.,     123  J'cnnstilcnnia. — In    ro    Turnor,    107 

Ky.  340,  96  S.  W.  538.  Pa.    St.   609,   31   Atl.    807 ;    Jeancs    v. 

Louisiana. — Shanghnessy    v.    Fogg,  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  .J.  Ri-p.  199,  5  Pa. 

15  La.  Ann.  330.  L.  J.  65. 

Massachusetts. — Temple    /•.    Phelps,  Rhode  Island. — Warren   r.   Warren, 

193  Mass.  297,  79  N.  E.  482.  33  R.  I.  71,  80  Atl.  593. 

Missouri. — Ex   p.   Gfeller,    178   Mo.  Washington. — Collins    r.    Hoffman, 

248,    269,    77    S.    W.    552;    Schaaf    V.  62  Wash.  278,  Ann.  Cas.  1913A  1,  113 

Fries,  77  Mo.  App.  346;  Standard  Oil  Pac.  625.     See  also  supra,  §   110. 

Co.  r.  Meyer  Bros.  Drug  Co.,  84  Mo.  17  Hager  v.  Shindler,  29  Cal.  47. 

App.  70;  In  re  Huffman,  132  Mo.  App.  18  See  supra,  §  110. 

44,  111  S.  W.  848.  l9Herrin  v.  Abbe,   55   Fla.   769,  46 

Nebraska.— Homo    F.    Ins.    Co.    v.  So.   183,   18   L.R.A.fN.S.)    907. 

Berg,  46  Neb.  600,  65  X.  W.  780.  20  Heister  r.  Davis,  3  Yeates    (Pa.) 

New    York. — Clark    r.    Richards,    3  4. 

E.  D.  Smith  89.  i  Williams  r.  Young,  46  la.  140. 

Ohio. — Smart  r.  X.  C.  Lodge  Xo.  2,  2  See  supra,  §  101. 
27   Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  273. 


196 


PEIVILEGED    COMMUXICATIOXS. 


[§  112 


view  to  his  employment  in  his  professional  capacity.  These  are 
privileged;  even  though  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  does 
not  result  from  the  consultation,  or  is  never  established  between 
the  parties.^  The  reason  upon  which  the  rule  is  founded  applies 
with  equal  force  where  the  attorney  is  not  able  to  determine 
whether  to  withhold  or  render  his  professional  aid  until  the  ap- 
plicant has  disclosed  the  merits  of  his  case.  Then,  if  he  should 
decline  to  act  professionally  in  the  matter,  on  account  of  previous 
engagements  and  prior  obligations  to  others,  or  from  necessity  or 
choice,  the  disclosures  and  communications  thus  made  should  be 
privileged.  The  term  "client"  should  be  understood  in  its  most 
enlarged  sense,  and  the  prohibition  should  close  the  mouths  of 
all  counsel  who  have  listened  to  disclosures  looking  to  professional 
aid ;  *  and  this  is  true  even  though  the  client  subsequently  denies 
that  he  made  any  statement  to  such  counsel.^  But  neither  the 
rule  nor  the  exception,  neither  the  letter  nor  the   spirit   of  the 


3  England. — Cromack  r.  Heatlicote, 
2  Brod.  &  B.  4,  6  E.  C.  L.  12,  4  Moo. 
C.  PI.  357. 

Alabama.— Stsite  v.  Tally,  102  Ala. 
25,  15  So.  722. 

California. — Hardy  v.  Martin.  150 
Cal.  341,89  Pac.  111. 

Colorado. — Denver  Tramway  Co.  v. 
Owens,  20  Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848. 

Georgia. — Young  v.  State,  05  Ga. 
525;  Peek  v.  Boone,  90  Ga.  767,  17  S. 
E.  66;  Haywood  r.  State,  114  Ga.  Ill, 
39  S.  E.  948. 

Illinois. — Thorp  v.  Goewcv,  85  111. 
Oil. 

Indiana. — Reed  /".  Smitli,  2  Ind.  160. 

loira. — Hanwon  r.  Kline,  136  la. 
101.  113  X.  W.  50  1. 

Maine. — Sargent  r.  ihinipden,  38 
Mo.  .587;  Wade  r.  Ridley,  87  Me.  308, 
32  Atl.   975. 

Mn.ssacliu.sctts. — l-'ostcr  /'.  Hall,  12 
Pick.  89,  22  Am.  I)i<'.   I0(). 

Mirliigan. — Aldi'iinnii  r.  People,  4 
.Mieli.  414,  69   Am.    Dec.  .'.2]. 


Mississippi. — Crisler  r.  Garland,  1 1 
Smed.  &  M.  136,  49  Am.  Dec.  49. 

Missouri. — See  West  v.  Freeman,  d'^ 
Mo.  App.  682. 

XrbrosJ:a. — Nelson  r.  Becker,  32 
Neb.  99,  48  N.  W.  962;  Jalinke  r. 
State,  68  Neb.  154,  94  N.  W.  158,  re- 
versed 68  Neb.  182,  104  N.  W.  154. 

Neiv  York. — Carnes  r.  Piatt,  36 
Super.  Ct.  361,  15  Abb.  Pr.  N.S.  337. 
See  also  Bacon  r.  Frisbie,  80  N.  Y 
394,  36  Am.  Rep.  627. 

Pennsylvania. — Surface  r.  Bentz, 
228  Pa.  St.  610,  21  Ann.  Cas.  215,  77 
Atl.    922. 

Texas. — Rosebud  r.  State,  50  Tex. 
Crim.  475,  98  S.  W.  858;  Interna- 
tional, etc.,  R.  Co.  IK  Duncan,  55  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  440,  121  S.  W.  362. 

Utah.— ^i-Aid  V.  Snowden,  23  Utah 
318,  65  Pac.  479. 

Wa.fhington. — llartness  v.  Brown, 
21    Wash.  655,  59  Pac.  491. 

4  (loss  /■.   Ki.e-iiis,  50  Mo.  335. 

5(;iilf,  ete.,  K.  Co.  r.  Gibson,  42 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  306.  93  S.  W.  469. 


§  11-'] 


PEIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


19: 


law,  extends  the  privilege  to  commnnications  voluntarily  made 
to  a  lawyer  after  he  has  informed  the  person  making  them  that 
he  will  not,  and  cannot,  accept  the  employment  to  which  the  com- 
mnnications relate.®  So,  also,  where  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  has  wholly  ceased,  communications  made  to  an  attor- 
ney by  a  former  client  are  not  privileged  from  disclosure  by  the 
attorney ;  '  and  the  fact  that  the  same  or  similar  statements  may 
have  been  made  to  the  attorney  while  the  confidential  relation 
existed  is  immaterial,  provided  snch  statements  are  voluntarily 
repeated  after  the  termination  of  the  relation.^  But  the  protec- 
tion o-iven  bv  the  law  to  communications  made  during  the  relation- 
ship  of  attorney  and  client  is  perpetual,  and  does  not  cease  with 
the  termination  of  the  suit,  nor  is  it  affected  by  the  party's  ceasing 
to  employ  the  attorney  and  retaining  another,  nor  by  any  other 
change  of  relation  between  them,  nor  by  the  death  of  the  client. 
The  seal  of  the  law  once  fixed  upon  them  remains  forever,  unless 
removed  by  the  party  himself  in  whose  favor  it  was  there  placed.* 


6  Farley  v.  Peebles,  50  Neb.  72:^,  70 
X.  W.  231;  Haulenbeek  r.  Mcdibbon, 
60  Hun  26,  20  Civ.  Pro.  406,  14  N.  Y. 
S.  393;  People  V.  Hess,  8  App.  Div. 
143.  40  X.  Y.  S.  486;  Setzar  v.  Wilson, 
20  X.  C.  501;  Piano  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Fraw- 
ley,  08  Wis.  577,  32  X.  W.  708. 

7Hager  v.  Shindler,  29  Cal.  47; 
Doan  V.  Dow,  8  Ind.  App.  324,  35  X. 
]•:.  709 :  Tlieisen  v.  Dayton,  82  la.  74, 
-17  X.  W.  891;  Hanson  v.  Kline,  136 
la.  101,  ]13  N.  W.  504;  State  r.  Her- 
bert, 63  Kan.  516,  66  Pac.  235;  McCoy 
r.  McCoy,  (Ky.)  125  S.  W.  177;  Wil- 
liams I".  Benton,  12  La.  Ann.  91; 
^Mandeville  v.  Guernsey,  38  Barb. 
(X.   Y.)    225. 

8  Brady  i:  State,  39  Xeb.  529.  58  X. 
W.  161;  Yordan  v.  Hess,  13  .Johns. 
(N.  Y.)    492. 

^California. — Hardy  v.  Martin,  150 
Cal.  341,  89  Pac.  111. 

Colorado. — Denver  Tramway  Co.  v. 
Owens,  20  Colo.  107,  36  Pac.  848. 


Delaicarc. — Bush  v.  McComb,  2 
Houst.  546. 

District  of  Columbia. — Oliver  V. 
Cameron,  MacArthur  &  M.  237. 

Louisiana. — Hart  r.  Thompson,  15 
La.  88;  Morris  r.  Cain,  39  La.  Ann. 
712,  1  So.  797,  2  So.  418. 

Maryland. — Chase's  Case,  1  Bland 
206,  17  Am.  Dec.  277. 

Michigan. — Lorimer  r.  Lorimer, 
124  Mich.  631,  83  X.  W.  609,  7  De- 
troit Leg.  X.  367. 

Missouri. — Sweet  v.  Owens,  309  Mo. 
1,  18  S.  W.  928. 

A^eio  York. — Utica  Bank  v.  Mer- 
sereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528,  49  Am.  Dec. 
:89;  Walton  r.  Fairchild,  4  X.  Y.  S. 
552. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Hughes  f.  Boone, 
]02  X.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  286. 

Pennsylvania. — Bennett's  Estate,  13 
Phila.  331,  37  Leg.  Int.  105. 

Texas. — Mcintosh  v.  Moore,  22  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  22,  53  S.  W.  611. 


198 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§     11:5 


§  113.  Documents  and  Other  Writings. —  The  rule  as  to 
privileged  communications  is  not  confined  to  the  oral  declarations 
of  the  client  to  his  counsel ;  it  is  equally  applicable  to  documents 
and  all  other  written  instruments,  knowledge  of  which  comes  to 
the  attorney  in  his  professional  capacity,  as  a  confidential  dis- 
closure by  his  client,  for  the  purposes  of  the  business  in  relation 
to  which  the  attorney  was  employed ;  and  the  attorney  can  neither 
be  compelled  to  produce  such  writings  in  court,  or  to  give  evidence 
of  their  contents,  where  the  client  himself  could  not  have  been 
com])elled  to  do  so.^°  A  paper  intrusted  to  an  attorney  is  in  the 
keeping  of  his  client  as  much  as  if  it  were  in  his  own  pocket.^^ 
More  especially  has  the  court  no  power  thus  to  search  the  attor- 


10  EiujJniid. — Robson  v.  Kemp,  5 
Esp.  52;  Braid  v.  Ackennan,  5  Esp. 
320;  Rex  v.  Dixon,  3  Burr.  1687; 
Bluck  r.  Galsworthy,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  91; 
Reg.  V.  Hankins,  2  C.  &  K.  823,  61  E. 
C.  L.  823;  Rex  v.  Iluntrr,  4  C.  &  P. 
128.  19  E.  C.  L.  306;  Rex  r.  Upper 
Boddington,  8  Dovvl.  &  R.  726,  16  E.  {.'. 
L.  348;  Soutiivvark,  etc.,  \Vater  Co.  r. 
Quick,  3  Q.  B.  D.  315. 

United  states. — Edison  Electric 
Light  Co.  V.  U.  S.  Electric  Lighting 
Co.,  44  Fed.  294;  Liggett  v.  Glenn,  51 
Fed.  3S1,  4  U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A. 
280. 

Connecticut. — Lynch'  v.  .Tiuhi,  3  Day 
499;  Goddard  /■.  (iardiicr,  2S  Conn. 
172. 

District  of  Columbia. —  Klliott  /".  V. 
S.  23  App.  Cas.  456. 

(leorgia. — Dover  i:  Harrell,  58  Ga. 
572;  Philman  r.  Marshall,  103  Ga.  82, 
29  S.  E.  598. 

Idaho. —  In  re  Xiihiy,  15  Idaho  559, 
98  Pac.  845. 

///ino/s.— Dietricli  /'.  Mitclicll.  43 
111.  40,  92  Am.  Dec.  99. 

Louisiana. — State  v.  lia/.hton,  15 
l.;i.   Ann.  72. 


Massacliusctts.  —  Anonymous,  8 

Mass.  370. 

Minnesota. — Davis  f.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Minn.  37,  72  N.  W.  823. 

Missouri. — Leschen  v.  Brazelle,  164 
Mo.  App.  415,  144  S.  W.  893. 

New  Hampshire. — Brown  v.  Payson, 
6  N.  H.  443. 

Xcw  Jersey. — ^lattliews  v.  Hoag- 
land,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  455,  21  Atl.  1054. 

Netc  York. — Coveney  r.  Tannahill, 
1  Hill  33,  37  Am.  Dec.  287;  Kellogg 
r.  Kellogg,  6  Barb.  116;  Jackson  r. 
Burtis,  14  Johns.  391;  People  v.  Ben- 
jamin, 9  How.  Pr.  419;  Genet  v.  Ket- 
chum,  62  N.  Y.  626. 

Pcnnsijiraniit. — Com.  r.  ]\loyer,  15 
Pliila.  397,  38  Leg.  Int.  458.  See  also 
•  leanes  /'.  Fridenherg.  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep. 
199.  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

Texas. — Downing  r.  State,  61  Tex. 
Crim.  519,  136  S.  W.  471. 

Vermont. — State  r.  Squires,  1  Tyler 
147;  Durkee  r.  Leiand,  4  Vt.  612; 
iii(ks  /•.  Blanchard,  60  Vt.  673,  15 
All.  401;  Arbuckle  r.  Templeton,  65 
\t.  205,  25  Atl.    1095. 

\\'is<-i>)ivin. — Winn  /•.  K/.ci,  125  Wis. 
19,    10:!    \.   W.  220. 

11  AnonN  niotis,  8    Mass.  370. 


§  IIUJ 


PKIV'ILKGEU    CO^UMLAlCATiOA'S. 


lyu 


ney  where  no  notice  has  been  given,  either  to  him  or  the  client, 
to  produce  the  paper. ^^  But  if  documents  are  not  privileged  while 
in  the  hands  of  a  party,  he  does  not  make  them  privileged  by 
merely  handing  them  to  his  counsel ;  ^^  the  privilege  is  for  the 
benefit  of  the  client,  not  the  attorney,  and  the  latter  nuiy  be  com- 
pelled to  produce  any  paper  which  the  client  could  l)e  compelled 
to  jn'oduce.'^*  Thus  as  to  papers  upon  which  the  rights  of  both 
parties  depend, ^^  and  documents  which  beh^ng  to  the  adverse 
party/**  This  exception  applies  even  though  the  client's  duty  to 
produce  the  writing,  or  give  evidence  of  its  contents,  depends  on 
a  statutory  provision,^'  It  is  often  as  necessary  to  secure  pro- 
fessional advice  from  an  attorney  in  regard  to  drafting  papers,  as 
in  respect  to  the  conduct  of  proceedings  in  court  ;^^  and,  as  a 
general  rule,  the  confidence  thus  reposed  in  the  attorney  is  privi- 
leged/^ Thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  instructions  given  by  a 
client  to  his  attorney  in  relation  to  papers  about  to  be  drafted 
by  the  latter,  which  include  a  statement  as  to  the  purpose  to  be 
accomplished,  are  privileged  communications  equally  with   those 


12  DoviT  (.-.  Harrell,  58  Ga.  572 ;  Mc- 
Plierson  r.  Rathbone,  7  Wend.  (X. 
Y.)    216. 

13  Edison  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  U.  S. 
Electric  Lighting  Co.,  4-i  Fed.  294; 
Myers  r.  Kenyon,  7  Cal.  App.  112, 
93  Pac.  888 ;  Travis  v.  January,  3 
Rob.  (La.)  227;  Leschen  r.  Brazclle, 
164  Mo.  App.  415,  144  S.  W.  893. 

If  a  party  and  his  counsel  could, 
by  transferring  from  the  one  to  the 
other  important  papers  required  as 
evidence  in  a  cause,  thereby  prevent 
the  court  from  compelling  tlie  pro- 
duction of  such  papers  on  a  trial,  it 
would  not  be  difficult  in  this  way  to 
defeat  the  administration  of  justice. 
Such  a  combination  between  a  party 
and  his  attorney  might  well,  under 
the  circumstances,  be  considered  as 
entirely  distinct  from  a  case  where 
the  confidential  communications  of 
a   client   are  sought   to   be   disclosed. 


People    v.    New    York,    29    Barb.    (N. 
Y.)    622, 

14  Ex  p.  Maulsby,  13  Md.  625;  In 
re  Cunnion,  201  N.  Y.  123,  Ann. 
Cas.  1912A  834.  94  X.  E.  648; 
Bankers'  Money  Order  Assoc,  r. 
Nachod,  120  App.  Div.  732,  105  X. 
Y.  S.  773. 

15  Allen  V.  Hartford  L.  Ins.  Co.,  72 
Conn.  693,  45  Atl.  955. 

16  Travis  v.  January,  3  Rob.  (La.) 
227. 

17  Bridgeport  r.  Bridgeport  Hy- 
draulic Co.,  81  Conn.  84,  70  Atl.  650; 
Mitchell's  Case,  12  Abb.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 
249. 

18  Brown  r.  Butler,  71  Conn.  576, 
42   Atl.   654. 

19  Fayerweather  r.  Ritch,  90  Fed. 
13;  Blunt  r.  Strong,  60  Ala.  572.  See 
also  Graham  v.  People,  63  Barb.  ( X. 
Y.)  468;  Hernandez  v.  State,  18  Tex. 
App.  134,  51   Am.  Rep.  295. 


200 


TKIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[^,  n:\ 


made  respecting  a  subject  of  contemplated  or  pending  litigation.^° 
But  when  the  document  has  been  executed  its  contents  are  no 
longer  confidential,  the  reason  for  the  rule  ceases,  and  the  counsel 
mav  as  properly  testify  to  the  contents  as  may  any  other  witness.^ 
And  where  the  transaction  between  the  attornej^  and  client  is  the 
preparation  of  a  written  instrument  in  accordance  with  the  client's 
directions,  and  no  legal  advice  is  asked  or  required,  the  reasons 
or  motives  moving  the  client  in  making  the  instrument,  if  stated 
to  the  attorney,  are  not  privileged.^  ]^or  are  statements,  made  in 
connection  with  the  drawing  of  legal  papers,  privileged  where  the 
idea  of  a  confidential  communication  is  not  involved;  ^  thus  coun- 
sel may  testify  as  to  the  construction  placed  on  a  certain  writing 
by  himself  and  his  client.*  Where  the  privilege  applies  to  a  writ- 
ing, an  attorney  cannot  be  compelled  to  testify  as  to  its  appear- 
ance when  it  was  placed  in  his  hands ;  ^  thus  he  cannot,  when 
examined  as  a  witness,  be  asked  whether  a  document,  shown  to 
him  by  his  client  in  the  course  of  a  professional  interview,  was 
then  in  the  same  state  as  when  produced  on  the  trial. ^  But  where 
the  appearance  of  the  instrument  is  known  to  the  attorney  inde- 
pendently of  the  confidential  relation,  he  may,  it  seems,  give  evi- 
dence thereof.'     The  privilege  does  not  extend  to  writings  ob- 


20  Brown  r.  Butler,  71  Conn.  576, 
42  Atl.  ().'34:  Rogers  v.  Lyon,  64  Barb. 
(X.  y.)  373;  Lang  r.  Ingalls  Zinc 
Co.,    (Tenn.)    49  S.  W.  288. 

Compare  Todd  v.  Munson,  53  Conn. 
.")7n,  4  Atl.  99,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  tlie  instructions  of  a  grantor  to 
an  attorney  as  to  tlie  drawing  of  a 
deed  are  not  ordinarily  privileged 
communications. 

1  Faycrweather  r.  Kitch,  90  Fed. 
13;  Schattman  r.  American  Credit 
Indemnity  Co..  34  Ajip.  l)iv.  392,  54 
X.   V.   S.   225. 

2  Champion  c.  McCarthy,  228  111. 
87,  10  Ann.  Cas.  517,  81  X.  E.  808, 
11  l,.i:.A.(X.S.)  1052:  Ilatton  r. 
Kohinson,  14  I'ick.  (Mass.)  416.  25 
Am.  Dee.   11.'.. 

3  'rr.iiihi    r.    Heche,   90    la.   612,   5S   X. 


W.    925:    Bronston    r.   Bronston,    141 
Ky.  639,  133  S.  W.  584. 

As  to  scriveners  and  the  like,  see 
supra,   §    103. 

4  Funk  r.  Mohr,  185  111.  395,  57 
X.  E.  2,  affirming  85  111.  App.  97; 
Schattman  t\  American  Credit  In- 
demnity Co.,  34  App.  Div.  392,  54  N. 
Y.  S.  225. 

5  Gray  v.  Fox,  43  Mo.  570,  97  Am. 
Dec.  416;  Brown  V.  Payson,  6  X.  H. 
443;  Coveney  v.  Tannahill,  1  Hili  (X. 
Y.)  33,  37  Am.  Dec.  287.  See  also 
Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 
Rep.   199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  (iry. 

eWheatley  v.  Williams,  1  M.  .t  W. 
(Eng.)  533;  Brown  r.  Payson,  6  X. 
n.  443. 

7  Hrown  r.  Foster,  1  11.  &  X.  (Eng.) 


114] 


rniVJLEGED    COMMUNICATIOlSrS. 


201 


taincd  bv  attorneys  from  sources  other  than  their  clients,  as 
where  they  are  received  from  third  parties,  whether  strangers  or 
opponents.^  Written  statements  found  upon  the  person  of  a 
prisoner  are  not  privileged,  although  they  were  made  by  him  for 
his  counsel.^ 

§  114.  Execution,  Delivery,  Appearance,  Existence,  and 
Possession  of  Written  Instruments.  —  An  attorney  who  is  pro- 
fessionally employed  to  prepare  a  legal  document  or  other  writing 
for  his  client,  and  who  afterwards  witnesses  its  execution,  nuiv 
be  compelled  not  only  to  prove  the  execution  of  such  instruuient.^" 
but  also  to  testify  whether  it  was  antedated, ^^  whether  it  has 
been  altered   since   its  execution,^^  whether  it  w^as   actually   de- 


736;  Baker  r.  Arnold,  1  Cai.   (X.  Y.) 
258. 

8  Davis  V.  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
70  Minn.  37,  72  N.  W.  823. 

Where  defendant's  attorney  got 
possession  of  certain  forged  notes 
from  others  than  defendant,  and  un- 
der circumstances  excluding  the  idea 
that  defendant  was  in  any  waj'  con- 
nected with  the  attorney's  possession 
or  had  knowledge  that  the  attornej' 
had  obtained  them,  the  attorney's 
professional  relation  with  defendant 
did  not  render  his  evidence  as  to  ob- 
taining the  notes  privileged.  Jordan 
r.  State,  (Tex.)   143  S.  W.  623. 

9  Renfro  r.  State,  42  Tex.  Crim. 
393,  56  S.  W.   1013. 

10  Say's  Case,  10  Mod.  (Eng.)  40; 
Sandford  r.  Eemington,  2  Yes.  Jr. 
(Eng.)  189;  Chapman  v.  Peebles,  84 
Ala.  283,  4  So.  273;  Utica  Bank  v. 
Mersereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  528, 
49  Am.  Dec.  189;  Schattman  r. 
American  Credit  Indemnity  Co.,  34 
App.  Div.  392,  54  X.  Y.  S.  225.  See 
also  Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L. 
J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

Compare    Hernandez     r.    State,    IS 


Tex.  App.  134,  51  Am.  Rep.  295, 
wherein  it  appears  that  at  the  trial 
of  the  appellant  for  perjury,  alleged 
to  have  been  committed  in  an  affidavit 
made  by  him  in  support  of  a  motion 
for  new  trial  filed  by  one  H.,  who 
had  been  convicted  of  theft,  the  State 
was  allowed,  over  objection  l)y  tlic 
defense,  to  introduce  the  attorney  of 
said  H.,  and  prove  by  him  that  he, 
at  the  instance  and  on  the  informa- 
tion of  appellant,  wrote  the  affidavit 
on  which  the  perjury  was  assigned. 
This  proof  was  objected  to  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  a  privileged  com- 
munication, and  it  was  held  that  the 
objection  was  well  taken,  and  that 
the  trial  court  erred  in  overruling  it. 
Attorney  as  subscribing  witness, 
see  infra,  §  126. 

11  Utica  Bank  r.  Mersereau,  3  Barb. 
Ch.  (X.  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dec.  189; 
Bundle  v.  Foster,  3  Tenn.  Ch.  658. 

12  Utica  Bank  v.  ilersereau,  3  Barb. 
Ch.  (X".  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dec.  189; 
Turner  v.  Warren,  160  Pa.  St.  336, 
28  Atl.  78J,  34  W.  N.  C.  245. 

Compare  cases  cited  in  the  preced- 
ing section  at  note  6. 


20: 


naVlLEGED    OO-MMU^'ICATIONS. 


[§  Hi 


livered,^^  and  to  give  evidence  of  any  other  fact,  in  connection 
with  the  execution  of  the  instrument,  which  does  not  involve  a 
disclosure  of  the  client's  confidences.^*  The  execution  of  the  docu- 
ment, however,  does  not  make  the  transactions  and  conversations 
between  counsel  and  client  which  led  up  to  its  execution  any  the 
less  confidential,  and  as  to  such  transactions  and  conversations 
there  is  no  express,  or  even  any  implied,  waiver. ^^  So,  also,  an 
attorney  may  be  compelled  to  testify  as  to  the  existence  of  a 
certain  paper, ^®  and  to  state  whether  he  has  it  in  his  possession, 
for  the  purpose  of  authorizing  the  adverse  party  to  give  parol 
evidence  of  its  contents ;  ^''  and,  if  it  was  in  his  possession  at  any 
time,  he  may  be  required  to  state  what  disposition  was  made  of 
it.'^'  Xor  can  an  attorney  be  excused  from  stating,  as  a  witness, 
how  he  obtained  possession  of  a  paper  concerning  which  the  other 
party  has  the  right  to  make  inqnirv.^^  The  name  of  the  person 
from  whom  papers  are  obtained  cannot  be  a  professional  secret.^" 


13  Utica  Bank  /•.  ]\Iersereau,  3  Barb. 
Ch.  (X.  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dee.  189: 
Scliattman  f.  American  Credit  In- 
demnity Co..  34  App.  Div.  392,  54  X. 
Y.  S.  225:  Turner  r.  Warren,  160  Pa. 
St.  3.3G,  28  Atl.  781,  34  W.  X.  C.  245. 

1^  Drunkenness  of  Client. — An  at- 
torney wlio  prepared  papers  for  his 
client  may  testify  as  to  wliether  the 
olii'nt  was  drunk,  but  not  to  tlii>  con- 
lidential  reasons  given  for  desiring 
the  execution  of  the  papers.  Lang  r. 
Ingalls  Zinc  Co.,  (Tenn.)  49  S.  W. 
288. 

Client's  Ahilitij  to  Understand  Dep- 
ositions.— Where  a  defendant,  after 
his  ex  parte  deposition  was  read,  tes- 
tified that  lie  did  not  understand  it. 
and  tliat  he  signed  it  at  tlie  instance 
(jf  his  iittonicy.  whom  lie  afterwards 
(iiscliiirgcd,  it  was  ln-ld  tliat  th"  tcs- 
tiiiioiiy  of  tlic  attoniev  as  to  whctlicr 
defendant  understood  the  (le])ositi()ii 
was  adniissiijle.  Sano  r.  I!(dl,  (Tex.) 
120    S.    VV.    24. 


15  Fayerweather  r.  Ritcli,  90  Fed. 
13. 

As  to  implied  waiver  by  making 
attorney  subscribing  witness,  see  in- 
fra,  §    126. 

16  Brandt  r.  Klein,  17  Johns.  (X. 
Y.)  335;  Schattman  r.  Ameiican 
Credit  Indemnity  Co.,  34  App.  Div. 
392,   54  X.   Y.   8.   225. 

17Rothwell     r.     King,     2     Swanst. 

(Eng. )  221  note;  Cole  r.  Cheovenda, 
4  Colo.  18;  Stokoe  r.  St.  Paul,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  40  Minn.  545,  42  X.  W.  482; 
Brandt  f.  Klein,  17  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 
335;  Jackson  r.  McVey,  18  Johns.  (X. 
Y.)  330;  Coveney  V.  Tannahill,  1   Hill 

(X.  Y.)  33,  37  Am.  Dec.  287;  Zabel 
r.  Schroeder,  35  Tex.  308.  See  also 
Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  1-.  J.  Yli'i). 
199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

18  Travis  r.  January,  3  Rob.  (La.) 
227;  State  r.  Cleason,  19  Ore.  159, 
23   Pac.   817. 

19  Brown  r.  Payson,  6  X.  II.  443: 
Allen   r.   Root.   39  Tex.   580. 

20  Kcvnolds  r.  Rowlev,  3  llol).   (La.) 


§   115] 


PKIVILliGKD    COMMUXICATIONS. 


203 


These  exceptions  are  based  on  the  theory  that  snch  matters  are 
independent  facts,  witnessed  by  the  attorney,  to  which  he  may 
testify  without  disclosing  any  confidential  communication  made 
by  the  client  to  him.^ 

§  115.  Correspondence. —  The  correspondence  between  at- 
torney and  client  is  entitled  to  privilege  from  disclosure  equally 
with  the  oral  communications  of  the  client  and  written  instru- 
ments given  to  the  attorney  for  the  purposes  of  his  employment.^ 
So,  also,  as  to  correspondence  between  associate  counsel,'  and  be- 
tween a  prosecuting  attorney  and  the  attorney-general.*  The 
rule  of  privilege  does  not,  however,  apply  to  letters  written  to  the 
attorney  by  a  third  person  ^  nor  to  letters  written  by  the  attorney 
to  third  persons  on  the  client's  behalf.^     The  fact  that  admissions 


201,  38  Am.  Dec.  233;  Brown  v.  Pay- 
son,    G    X.    II.    443. 

1  Scliattnian  r.  American  Credit  In- 
demnity Co.,  34  App.  Div.  392,  54  N. 
Y.  S.  225;  Turner  r.  Warren,  IGO 
Pa.  St.  336,  28  Atl.  781,  34  W.  N.  C. 
245. 

^Alabama. — Ganus  i".  Tew,  1G3 
Ala.   358,   50   So.    1000. 

California. — Hardy  r.  Martin,  150 
Cal.   341,   89   Pac.   111. 

Oeorgia. — Philadelphia  F.  Assoc,  r. 
Fleming,  78  Ga.  733,  3  S.  E.  420; 
Southern  R.  Co.  v.  White,  108  Ga. 
201,  33  S.  E.  962;  Rylee  c.  Statham 
Bank,  7  Ga.  App.  489,  67  S.  E.  383. 

Massachusetts. — Higbee  v.  Dresser, 
103  Mass.  523. 

Minnesota. — Davis  r.  New  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Minn.  37,  72  N.  W. 
823;  Lindahl  i\  Supreme  Court,  etc., 
100  Minn.  87,  110  N.  W.  358,  117 
Am.  St.  Rep.  666,  8  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
916. 

Missouri. — Ebersole  v.  Rankin,  102 
Mo.  488,  15  S.  W.  422. 

Wisconsin. — Selden  r.  State,  74 
W'is.  271,  42  X.  W.  218,  17  Am.  St. 
Rep.    144. 


3  Where  an  attorney  writes  a  let- 
ter to  a  client  and  sends  a  copy  tliere- 
of  to  an  associate  attorney,  such  copy 
is  a  privileged  communication.  Jones 
r.  Nantahala  Marble,  etc.,  Co.,  137 
N.  C.  237,  49  S.  E.  94. 

Wliere  a  railroad's  general  attorney 
employed  local  counsel  to  try  a  suit, 
the  contents  of  a  letter  received  by 
such  local  counsel  from  his  employer, 
relating  to  an  issue  arising  at  the 
trial,  is  privileged.  ^Missouri,  etc., 
R.  Co.  V.  Williams,  43  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
549,    96    S.    W.    1087. 

4  A  federal  district  attorney  repre- 
sents the  United  States,  and  the  cor- 
respondence between  him  and  the 
attorney-general  is  confidential  in  its 
nutinc  and  cannot  be  cited  by  third 
persons.  U.  S.  r.  Six  Lots  of  Ground, 
1  Woods  234,  27  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,299. 

5  Price  r.  Hagle,  171  Mich.  455,  137 
X.    W.    253. 

6  That  a  letter  is  sent  by  a  lawyer 
in  an  effort  to  collect  an  account 
does  not  make  it  privileged,  so  as  to 
relieve  him  from  the  penalty  pre- 
scribed by  Code  1907,  §  6218,  for 
sending  a  threatening  or  abusive  let- 


204  PEIVILEGED    COMMUXICATIOXS.  [§     110 

sought  to  be  put  in  evidence  are  contained  in  a  letter  written  to 
counsel  does  not  change  their  character,  so  long  as  it  appears  that 
such  letter  is  in  fact  a  communication  between  attorney  and  client, 
and  was  called  into  existence  by  reason  of  that  relation.'  Thus 
a  witness  examined  under  a  commission  issued  out  of  a  court  of 
a  foreign  country  will  not  be  required  to  answer  questions  relat- 
ing to  letters,  in  his  possession,  written  by  the  parties  to  the  for- 
eign controversy,  where  such  letters  were  received  bv  him  in  his 
capacity  as  attorney  for  one  of  such  foreign  litigants.'  But  cor- 
respondence between  attorney  and  client  which  does  not  relate  to 
professional  matters,  or  in  which  no  confidential  disclosures  are 
made,  is  not  privileged.^  It  has  been  so  held  as  to  ordinary 
business  letters,^"  and  as  to  letters  written  by  a  litigant  to  his 
opponent,"  and  a  letter  written  by  an  attorney  to  his  client,  ad- 
vising him  of  the  terms  of  an  injunction  granted  against  him  in 
a  suit  in  which  the  attorney  was  employed.^^  ISTeither  the  fact 
that  an  attorney  communicated  with  his  client,  nor  the  date  of 
the  communication,  nor  the  fact  that  subsequently  the  client  acted 
under  the  attorney's  advice,  is  excluded  by  reason  of  j^rivilege. 
Consequently,  the  postmark  on  an  envelope  which  contains  a  let- 
ter from  the  attorney  to  the  client,  and  the  date  of  the  letter  itself, 
are  admissible  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  day  on  which  the 
communication  was  mailed  and  received.^^ 

Limiiaiion  of  Eule. 

§   116.  Generally.  —  Although  the  rule  as  to  privileged  com- 
munifations  is  inflexible  in  the  cases  to  which   it  applies,   there 

ter,    wliich    may    tend    to    provoke    a  732,  105  N.  Y.  S.  773:  Collins  y.  TToff- 

breacli  of  the  peaee.     Peters  r.  State,  man,  62  Wash.  278,  Ann.  Cas.  1!)13A 

](iO  Ala.  .35,  51  So.  952.  1,  113  Pac.  025. 

'Lip^'ett  V.   Glenn,   51    Fed.   3S1,   4  10  Curry   r.   Charles   Warner  Co.,   2 

U.  S.  App.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  280.  Marv.   (Del.)   98,  42  Atl.  425. 

SMatter  of  Whitlock,  51  Hun  351,  n  Harrisburg     Car     Mfg.     Co.     V. 

3   N,   Y.   S.   855,  reversing  judgment  Sloan,  120  Ind.  156,  21  N.  E.  108S. 

15  Civ.  Pro.  204,  2  X.  Y.  S.  083.  12  Aaron    v.    U.    S.,    155    Fed.    833, 

9  Bell  V.  Staacke,  159  Cal.  lit:'.,  11.^)  .S4  (  .  C.  A.  07. 

Pac.  221;    Benton   v.  Benton,   IOC.    La.  13  liyU'c    v.    Statliam    Bank,    7    Ga. 

•19,  30   So.   137:    Bankers'  Money   Or-  App.  489,  07   S.  E.  383. 
der   Ahhoc.  v.   Nachod,    120   App.   Div. 


§     117]  PEIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  205 

are  what  are  sometimes  called  exceptions  to  it,  but  these  excej)- 
tions  are  api:)arent  rather  than  real,  and  will  generally  be  fonnd 
upon  examination  to  be  entirely  without  the  principle  upon  which 
the  rule  rests.  That  is,  it  will  be  found  either  that  they  are  not 
communications  from  the  client  to  the  legal  adviser  at  all,  but  in- 
formation which  the  latter  has  acquired  independently  of  any 
such  communication  or,  that,  under  the  circumstances,  a  waiver 
of  the  privilege  is  implied.  And  where  this  is  the  case,  the  in- 
terests of  justice,  so  far  from  requiring  that  the  information  shall 
be  locked  up  in  the  breast  of  the  attorney,  demand  its  publicity, 
when  necessary  to  guard  or  to  assert  the  rights  of  third  persons. ■'^ 
j^Tor  does  the  rule  preclude  the  adverse  party  from  resorting  to  any 
and  all  legitimate  methods  of  proof  to  reach  the  facts  which  he  de- 
sires to  have  disclosed.'^*  The  acts  of  both  the  client  and  his  attor- 
ney, when  relevant  to  the  issue,  may  be  fully  proven.^® 

§  117.  Communications  in  Presence  of,  or  Overheard  by, 
Third  Persons.  —  In  order  that  the  rule  or  its  reason  shall 
apply,  it  is  inherently  necessary  that  the  communication  made 
by  the  client  to  the  attorney,  or  to  his  clerk,  should  be  confiden- 
tial ;  "  therefore  if  the  client  chooses  to  make  his  communication 
in  the  presence  of  third  persons,  it  ceases  to  be  confidential,  and 
is  not  entitled  to  the  protection  aiforded  by  the  rule.^*     The  privi- 

14  Chew   V.    Farmers  Bank,    2    Md.           Georgia. — Corbett     v.     Gilbert,     24 
Ch.   231.  Ga.  454;   Brown  V.  Matthews,  79  Ga. 

15  Elliott    V.    U.    S.,  23    App.    Gas.       1,  4   S.   E.   13;    Stone  r.  Minter,  111 
(D.   C.)    45G.  Ga.  4.5,  36  S.  E.  321,  50  L.R.A.  35G; 

16  State  V.  Perry,  4  Idaho  224,  38  Fuller  r.  Wood,  137  Ga.  66,  72  S.  E. 
Pac.    655.  504. 

17  See  .s7/pra,  §  111.  Illinois. — Scott     v.     Aultman     Co., 
i&United  States.— See  In  re  Dono-       211  111.  612,  71  N.  E.  1112,  103  Am. 

Ime,  2  Hask.  17,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,990.  St.  Rep.  215,  affirming  113  111.  App. 

Alabama. — Mobile,    etc.,    R.    Co.    v.  581;   Champion  v.  McCarthy,  228  111. 

Ycates,  67  Ala.  164.  87,   10  Ann.  Cas.  517,  81  N.  E.  808, 

Ca.h'/crm'a.— Gallagher   v.   William-  11     L.R.A.  (N.S.)     1052;     Kissack    v. 

son,    23   Cal.   331,   83   Am.   Dee.    114;  Bourke,  132  111.  App.  360. 

Ruiz  r.   Dow,   113   Cal.   490,   45   Pac.  Massachusetts. — Day   v.   Moore,    13 

8G7;    Piercy    V.   Piercy,   18   Cal.   App.  Gray    522;    Hatton    v.    Robinson,    14 

751,    124  Pac.   561.  Pick.  416,  25  Am.  Dec.  415. 

Connecticut.— GoddsiTd  v.   Gardner,  Michigan.— Hartford  F.  Ins.  Co.  v. 

28    Conn.    172.  Reynolds,    36    Mich.    502;     House    v. 


206 


nil  VIl.KGED    COMM  UXICATIOXS. 


[§  117 


lege  extends  only  to  the  attorney,  and  to  persons  who  are  the 
media  of  comnmnieation  between  him  and  his  client ;  ^^  therefore, 
a  person  in  no  way  connected  w^ith  him,  who  was  present  at  the 
making  of  the  comnmnieation,  is  bonnd  to  testify  to  the  facts 
disclosed.^"  Bnt  Avhere  a  third  person  was  present  only  part  of 
the  time,  the  evidence  should  be  contined  to  what  was  said  in  his 
presence.^  This  limitation  of  the  rule  is  especially  applicable 
where  both  parties  are  present  at  the  time  the  statements  are 
made.  These  statements  are  not  contidential  communications,  but 
facts  that  occur  in  the  attorney's  presence ;  they  are  not  to  be 
concealed  from  the  opposite  party,  but  are  dealings  with  that 
party,  and  from  that  fact  are  necessarily  within  his  knowledge. 
They  are,  therefore,  not  Avithin.the  terms  or  reason  of  the  rule 
that  prohibits  counsel   from   disclosing  communications  made   to 


House.  61  Mich.  69,  27  X.  W.  8.58,  1 
Am.  St.  Rep.  570;  People  r.  Andre, 
].13  Mich.  531,  117  X.  \V.  55,  15 
Detroit  Leg  X.  503. 

Mississippi. — Perkins  v.  Gviy,  55 
Miss.  153,  30  Am.  Rep.  510. 

Missouri. — Tyler  v.  Hall,  106  Mo. 
313,  17  S.  W.  319,  27  Am.  St.  Rep. 
337:  \\'einstein  r.  Reid,  25  Mo.  App. 
41. 

XcbrasLa.—EWiott  r.  Elliott,  3 
Xeb.  (unoflicial)  Rep.  832,  92  X.  W. 
1006. 

Xciv  Uainpsliirr. —  Patten  r.  Moor, 
29  X.  H.   163. 

Xew  Jersey. —  Ivojjct  /".  State,  58  X. 
J.  L.  420,  33  Atl.  969. 

Xew  York. — .Tackson  V.  French,  3 
Wend.  337,  20  Am.  Dec.  699;  Brand 
r.  I'.rarid,  39  How.  Pr.  193;  Whiting 
r.  J5arney,  30  X.  Y.  342,  86  Am. 
Dec.  385;  liritton  (;.  Lorenz,  45  X. 
Y.  51;  People  r.  Buchanan,  145  X. 
^■.  1.  ."{9  X.  E.  846;  People  V.  Farmer, 
I!t4  X.  Y.  251,  87  X.  E.  457;  Matter 
of  McCarthy.  55  11  mi  7,  8  X.  Y.  S. 
57S;    Lccdiir   r.   liii|n)rti'rs',   etc.,    Xat. 


Bank,  61  App.  Div.  163.  70  X.  Y.  S. 
419;  In  re  Eckler,  126  App.  Div.  199, 
110  X.  Y.  S.  650,  reversing  47  ,Misc. 
320,  95  X.  Y.  S.  986;  Cooperson  r. 
Pollon,  30  Misc.  619,  62  X'.  Y.  S. 
772;  In  re  Simmons,  48  Misc.  484, 
96   X.   Y.   S.    1103. 

Texas.— B.OUX  V.  Blum,  9  Te.K.  Civ. 
App.  588,  29  S.  W.  1135;  Walker  r. 
State,   19   Tex.  App.   176. 

Vermont. — State  v.  Fitzgerald,  68 
Vt.  125,  34  Atl.  429.  See  also  Gross 
r.  State,  61  Tex.  Crim.  176,  135  S.  W. 
373,   33   L.R.A.(X.S.)    477. 

19  Morton  r.  Smith,  (Tex.)  44  S. 
W.   083. 

See  supra.   §    102. 

20Pulford's  Appeal,  48  Conn.  247; 
State  v.  Sterrett,  68  la.  76,  25  N.  W. 
936;  Tyler  v.  Hall,  106  Mo.  313,  17 
S.  VV.  319,  27  Ain.  St.  Rep.  337; 
Weinstein  v.  Reid,  25  Mo.  App.  41 ; 
Basye  v.  State,  45  Xeb.  261,  63  X. 
W.    811. 

1  Gabriel  v.  Mc.Muliiii,  127  la.  426, 
103  X.  W.  355;  Brand  r.  Brand,  39 
Mow.    Pr.    (X.    Y.)    193. 


§    117]  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  207 

them  l)v  clients.^  P>iit  where  one  of  the  parties  went  alone  to 
sneh  attorney,  beoanse  he  was  his  retained  attorney,  and  made 
statements  to  him,  in  the  a1)senoe  of  the  other  party,  whicli  were 
apparently  eonfidential,  he  shonld  not  be  permitted  to  testify 
as  to  sneh  statements.^  A  third  person  who  overhears  a  eonfi- 
dential  commnnication  between  an  attorney  and  his  client  mav 
testify  thereto;  as  the  rnle,  which  prohibits  an  attorney  from 
testifying-  as  to  a  privileged  communication  made  to  him  by  his 
client,  has  no  apidication  to  a  third  person  who  by  accident  or 
design  overheard  the  commnnication.*  It  has  been  held  that  no 
]-eason  of  necessity  reqnires  that  any  witness,  save  an  interpreter, 
should  ever  be  present  at  a  consultation  between  the  client  and  his 
attorney.*  But  such  a  rule  is  too  narrow.  It  would  exclude  the 
])resence  of  the  client's  agents,  who,  in  some  instances  at  least, 
must  be  present  at  conferences  between  attorney  and  client  in 
order  that  counsel  may  obtain  accurate  information  of  the  facts,^ 
and  it  would  also  exclude  cases  Avhere  a  parent  must  accompanv 
a  child  and  be  present  during  the  interview,  as,  by  way  of  illus- 
tration, where  a  female  child  is  obliged  to  discuss  matters  of  a 
delicate  nature  with  counsel.'  But  the  mere  fact  that  a  third 
person  was  present  during  a  consultation  between  attorney  and 
client  does  not  of  itself  qualify  the  attorney  as  a  witness  to  what 

2J3ominguez    r.    Citizens'    Bank    &  5  Goddard    r.    Gardner,     28     t  onn. 

Trust   Co.,  62   Fla.   148,   56   So.   682;  172. 

Stone  V.  Minter,  111  Ga.  45,  36  S.  E.  Attorney's  Son   Present   at   Consid- 

."521,  50  L.R.A.  356;  Rester  v.  Powell,  tation. — Where  a  communication  was 

120   La.   406,   45   So.   372;    Deuser   v.  made  by  a  client  to  an  attorney,   in 

\Valkup.    43    Mo.    App.    625;    Deuser  tlie  office  of  the  latter,  which  was  in 

r.   Hamilton,  52  Mo.  App.  394;    Carr  his   dwelling  house,   and  in   the   pres- 

V.  Weld,   19  N.  J.   Eq.   319;    Coveney  ence    of   a    son    cf   the    attorney,   who 

r.  Tannahill,   1   Hill    (N.  Y.)    33,  37  lived   in  his  family,  but  who  had  no 

Am.    Dec.    287;    Hummel    r.    Kistner,  connection  with  the  professional  busi- 

182  Pa.  St.  216,  37  Atl.  815.  iiess   of   his   father,   it  was   held   that 

3  Dominguez  r.  Citizens'  Baidv  &  the  communication  was  not,  in  rola- 
Trust  Co.  62  Fla.  148,  56  So.  682.  tion  to  the  son,  a  privileged  one,  and 

4  State  V.  Perry,  4  Idaho  224,  38  that  it  might  be  disclosed  by  his  tes- 
Pac.  ()55;  Hoy  r.  Morris,  13  Gi-ay  timony.  Goddard  r.  Gardner,  28 
(Mass.)   519,  74  Am.  Dec.  650;  State  Conn.   172. 

V.   Falsetta,   43   Wash.    159,    10   Ann.  6  See  sTfpra,  §  102. 

Cas.    177,    86   Pac.    168.  7  Bowers  v.  State,  29  Ohio  St.  542. 


208  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  [§     118 

was  said  bv  his  client  on  that  occasion ;  ^  and  as  between  the  client 
and  his  counsel,  the  right  of  the  client  to  have  his  disclosnres  kept 
secret  remains,  notwithstanding-  the  presence  of  a  stranger.^ 

§  118.  Communications  to  Be  Made  Public,  or  Conveyed 
to  Others.  —  Only  commnnications  which  are  confidential  are 
jjrotected  bv  the  rule ;  ^°  those  which  the  attorney,  in  the  discharge 
of  his  duty  to  his  client,  is  of  necessity  obliged  to  make  public,  or 
are  made  to  him  for  that  purpose,  cannot  be  said  to  be  confidential, 
and  are  not  privileged. ^^  This  principle  has  been  applied  to  plead- 
ings,^^ and  to  statements  made  by  a  client  to  his  attorney  of  facts 
to  be  alleged  and  incorporated  in  a  pleading  which  is  to  be  filed 
in  court.'^^  But  the  contents  of  papers  which  were  prepared  with 
a  view  to  their  use  as  pleadings,  and  which  were  never  used  as 
such,  are  not  privileged.'^*  So,  also,  it  has  been  held  that  com- 
munications between  an  applicant  for  a  patent  and  the  patent 
office,  touching  an  unissued  patent,  are  not  recognized  as  privi- 
leged.^^ In  the  same  manner,  communications  made  to  an  at- 
torney for  the  purpose  of  being  conveyed  by  him  to  others,  are 

8  Brazier  r.  Fortune,  ]0  Ala.  516;  Pennsylvania. — Beeson  v.  Beeson,  9 
Blount  V.  Kimpton,  155  Mass.  378.  Pa.  St.  279;  Heaton  r.  Findlay,  12 
29  K  E.  590,  31  Am.  St.  Hep.  554.  Pa.   St.   304;    Kramer  r.  Kister,   187 

9  Blount  V.  Kimpton,  155  Mass.  378,  Pa.  St.  227,  40  Atl.  1008,  44  L.R.A. 
29  X.  E.  590,  31  Am.  St.  Rep.  554.  432,  42  W.  N.  C.  392. 

10  See  supra,  §  111.  Texas. — Warner   Elevator  Mfg.   Co. 
11 /»wois.— Scott     V.     Harris,     113       V.  Houston,  28  S.  W.  405. 

111.    447.  12  In    re    Elliott,    73   Kan.    151,    84 

Iowa. — Caldwell     i\     Moltveldt,    93  Pac.  750;  Cormier  r.  Richard,  7  ilart. 

la.  730,  61  N.  W.  1090.  N.  S.   (La.)    177;   People  v.  Peterson, 

iJ/aine.— Alden  v.  Goddard,   73   Me.  60    App.    Div.    118,    15    N.    Y.    Crim. 

345.  421,  69  K  Y.  S.  941.     See  also  War- 

Xeio  Mexico. — Waldo   v.    Beckwitli,  tier    Elevator    Mfg.    Co.    v.    Houston, 

1  N.  M.  182.  (Tex.)    28   S.   \V.  405. 

A'eu>    York. — Martin     r.    Piatt,    51  13  San     Antonio,     etc.,     R.     Co.     r. 

Ilun  429,  4  N.  Y.  S.  359;   Bartlett  v.  Brooking,   (Tex.)    51  S.  VV.  537. 

Bunn.  56  Hun  507,   K)   N.   V.  S.  210;  14  Neal  r.  Patten,  47  Ga.  73;  Roon- 

('i)llins   V.   Hol)ins()ii,   72    Hum   495,  25  ey    v.    Maryland    Casualty    Co.,     184 

N.    \.   S.    26S;    .McTavish    r.    D.^miing,  Mass.  20,  67  N.  E.  882. 

Aiilli.   N.    P.    113;    i'eopic   r.    I'armer,  16  Edison   Electric  Light   Co.   i'.   U. 

l!;l   .\.   Y.  251,   87   N.   E.  457.  S.  Electric  Lighting  Co.,  44  Fed.  294. 


§  110] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


2(yj 


stripped  of  the  idea  of  a  confidential  diselosiire,  and  therefore 
are  not  privileged.^®  Thus,  where  property  has  l^eeii  conveyed  ^^ 
or  title  papers  delivered  to  an  attorney,^*  or  to  a  third  person,^' 
for  the  purpose  of  having-  such  property  reconveyed  or  such  title 
papers  redelivered  to  another,  the  transaction  is  not  a  privileged 
one,  and  may  be  disclosed  by  the  attorney.^"  Nor  does  the  privi- 
lege extend  to  communications  between  the  attorney  and  a  third 
person  in  the  transaction  of  the  client's  business/  as  where  the 
attorney  is  authorized  to  enter  into  a  contract,^  or  compromise, 
in  the  interest  of  his  client.^ 


§  119.  Communications  in  Connection  with  Preparation 
of  Wills.  — An  attorney  who  prepares  a  will  cannot,  during  the 
life  of  the  testator,  testify  to  communications  made  to  him  by 
such  testator  concerning  it,  or  to  the  contents  of  the  will  itself;  * 
but  after  the  testator's  death,  there  is  no  reason  wdiy,  in  so  far 


iG  A  lahayna.— White  v.  State,  86 
Ala.  CU,  r,  So.  074. 

Indiana. — Bruce  i\  Osgood,  113  Ind. 
360,  14  N.  E.  563;  Model  Clothing 
House  r.  Hirsch,  42  Ind.  App.  270, 
85   N.   E.   719. 

Kentucky. — List  f.  List,  82  S.  W. 
446,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  691. 

Massachusetts. — Phillips  v.  Chase, 
201  Mass.  444,  87  N.  E.  755,  131  Am. 
St.  Rep.  406. 

Missouri. — State  r.  Hedgepeth,  125 
Mo.  14,  28  S.  W.  160. 

New  York. — Galle  f.  Tode,  74  Hun 
542,  26  N.  Y.  S.  633,  affirmed  148 
N.  Y.  270,  42  N.  E.  673. 

Pennsylvania. — See  Jeanes  r.  Fri- 
denberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa. 
L.  J.  65. 

Texas. — Henderson  v.  Terry,  62 
Tex.   281. 

HHager  v.  Shindler,  29  Gal.  47. 

18  Rosscau  v.  Bleau,  131  N.  Y.  177, 
30  N.  E.  52,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  578. 
Attys.  at  L.  VoL  I.— 14. 


19  Maxwell  r.  Harper,  51  Wash. 
351,   98    Pac.    756. 

20Hager  v.  Shindler,  29  Cal.  47; 
Rosseau  v.  Bleau,  131  N.  Y.  177,  30  N. 
E.  52,  27  Am.  St.  Rep.  578;  Maxwell 
v.  Harper,  51  \\'ash.  351,  98  Pac. 
756. 

1  Herman  i".  Sclilesinger,  114  Wis. 
382,  90  K  W.  460,  91  Am.  St.  Rep. 
922. 

SBurnside  v.  Terry,  51  Ga.  186; 
Kramer  r.  Kister,  187  Pa.  St.  227, 
40  Atl.  1008,  44  L.R.A.  432,  42  W. 
N.  C.  392;  Koeber  r.  Somers,  108 
Wis.  497,  84  X.  W.  991,  52  L.R.A. 
512. 

3  Trenton  St.  R.  Co.  r.  Lawlor,  74 
X.  .J.  Eq.  828,  71  Atl.  234,  74  Atl. 
068;  Williams  V.  Blumenthal,  27 
Wash.  24,  67  Pac.  393. 

4  Elliott  r.  U.  S.,  23  App.  Cas. 
(D.     C.)     456;     Doherty     v.    O'Calla- 

ghan,  157  Mass.  90,  31  X.  E.  726,  34 
Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  17  L.R.A.  188;   In 


210 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§    110 


as  an  objection  thereto  on  the  ground  of  being  a  privileged  coni- 
niimication  is  concerned,  the  attorney  should  not  be  allowed  so 
to  testify.^  In  such  cases  the  reason  on  which  the  rule  proceeds 
is  wanting;^  and  with  the  reason,  the  rule  itself  ceases.'  to  the 
end  that  full  and  complete  justice  may  be  done,  not  only  to  the 
living,  but  to  the  dead.'     By  requesting  his  attorney  to  draw  his 


re  Downing,  118  Wis.  581,  95  N.  W. 
876. 

5  England. — Russell  r.  Jackson,  9 
Hare    387. 

United  States. — Blackburn  r.  Craw- 
ford, 3  Wall.  175,  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
186;  Glover  v.  Patten,  165  U.  S.  394, 
17  S.  Ct.  411,  41  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    760. 

California. — In  re  Dominici,  151 
Cal.  181,  90  Pac.  448. 

District  of  Columbia. — Olmstcad  v. 
Webb,  5  App.  Cas.  38. 

Georgia. — O'Brien  v.  Spalding,  102 
Ga.  490,  31  S.  E.  100,  66  Am.  St.  Rep. 
•202. 

JUitwis. — Champion  v.  ^McCarthy, 
228  111.  87,  10  Ann.  Cas.  517,  81  N. 
E.  808,  11  L.R.A.(N.S.)  1052;  Wil- 
kinson V.  Service,  249  111.  146,  Ann. 
Cas.  1912A  41,  94  N.  E.  50. 

Indiana. — Kern  t".  Kern,  154  Ind. 
29,  55  N.  E.  1004;  Inlow  v.  Hughes, 
38  Ind.  App.  375,  76  N.  E.  763. 

loica. — See  Stoddard  V.  Kendall, 
140  la.  688,  119  X.  W.  138. 

Kaiisas. — Kerr  v.  Kerr,  85  Kan. 
460,    116   Pac.   880. 

Maine. — ITolyoke  v.  Holyoke,  87 
Atl.  40. 

Massachusetts. — Doherty  v.  O'Cal- 
h.olian,  157  Mass.  90,  31  N.  E.  726, 
:!4  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  17  L.R.A.  188; 
I'liillips  V.  Chase,  201  Mass.  444,  87 
-V.    K.   755,  131    Am.  St.  Rep.  406. 

Michigan. — In  re  Lorce,  158  ^lich. 
372,  122  N.  \V.  623,  16  Detroit  Leg. 
X.    ()30. 


Minnesota. — ^Coates  v.  Semper,  82 
Minn.  460,  85  N.  w.  217. 

Missouri. — Graham  v.  O'Fallon,  4 
Mo.  338.  Compare  Sweet  v.  Owens, 
109  Mo.  1,  18  S.  W.  928  (set  out  be- 
low ) . 

Texas. — Pierce  v.  Farrar,  126  S. 
W.  932. 

Utah.— In  re  Young,  33  Utah  382, 
14  Ann.  Cas.  596,  94  Pac.  731,  126 
Am.  St.  Rep.  843,  17  L.R.A.  (N.S.) 
108. 

Wisconsin. — In  re  Downing,  118 
Wis.  581,  95  N.  W.  876. 

Compare  Sweet  v.  Owens,  109  Mo. 
1,  18  S.  W.  928,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  communications  to  an  attorney, 
employed  to  draw  a  will,  concerning 
the  amount  of  land  which  the  testa- 
tor intended  to  convey  by  a  deed  al- 
ready executed,  are  confidential,  and, 
hence,  not  admissible  in  an  action  to 
reform  the  deed,  after  the  testator's 
death,  on  the  ground  of  mistake. 

s  Blackburn  v.  Crawford,  3  Wall. 
175,  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  186;  Glover  r. 
Patten,  165  U.  S.  394,  17  S.  Ct.  411, 
41  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  760;  Dogherty  r. 
O'Callaghan,  157  Mass.  90,  31  X.  E. 
726,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,  17  L.R.A. 
188;  Phillips  v.  Chase,  201  Mass.  444, 
87  N.  E.  755,  131  Am.  St.  Rep.  406. 

7  In  re  Dominici,  151  Cal.  181,  90 
Pac.  448;  In  re  Layman,  40  Minn. 
371,  42   X.   W.   286. 

8  O'Brien  r.  Spalding,  102  Ga.  490, 
31    S.   E.   100,   66   Am.   St.   Rep.   202; 


§  n»] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


211 


M'ill,  the  client  implietlly  asks  him  to  do  and  say  whatever  may, 
at  any  time  and  place,  be  requisite  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing the  integrity  of  the  will.'  The  attorney's  relationship  in  the 
matter  is  material  only  in  determining  the  weight  to  which  his 
testimony  is  entitled.^"  An  attorney  who  has  prepared  a  will 
may  testify  as  to  the  mental  condition  of  his  client  at  that  tinio.^^ 
and  as  to  whether  the  testator  was  subjected  to  undue  influence. ^^ 
In  some  states  it  has  been  held  that  an  action  by  a  person  who 
does  not  claim  under  the  will,  against  those  who  do  so  claim,  is 
not  wnthin  this  exception  to  the  rule,  and  that  in  such  case  the 
heirs  and  devisees  may  claim  the  privilege. ^^  In  Marjdand  it 
seems  that  this  exception  to  the  general  rule  does  not  prevail,  and 
that  the  privilege  applies  to  the  communications  under  discus- 
sion.^* So,  also,  in  Xew  York  the  common-law  rules  of  evidence 
in  respect  to  privileged  communications  have  been  materially 
changed  by  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,^^  which  prohibits  an  attor- 
ney from  disclosing  communications  between  him  and  a  testator, 
regarding  testamentary  matters,  excejjt  in  the  case  of  the  probate 
of  a  will  to  which  the  attorney  is  an  attesting  witness. ^^     When  a 


In  re  Young,  33  Utah  382,  14  Ann. 
Cas.  596,  94  Pac.  731,  ]26  Am.  St. 
Rep.  843,  17  L.R.A.(N.S.)    108. 

9  In  re  Nelson,  132  Cal.  182,  64 
Pac.   294. 

10  Ross  r.  Ross,  140  la.  51,  117  N. 
W.   1105. 

"Norton  v.  Clark,  253  111.  557,  97 
N.  E,  1079;  In  re  Layman,  40  Minn. 
371,  42  N.  W.  286;  Daniel  v.  Daniel, 
39    Pa.    St.   191. 

12  In  re  Young,  33  Utah  382,  14 
Ann.  Cas.  596,  94  Pac.  731,  126  Am. 
St.    Rep.    843,    17    L.R.A.(N.S.)     108. 

13  Emerson  r.  Scott,  39  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  65,  87  S.  W.  369.  See  also 
Russell  V.  .Jackson.  9  Hare  (Eng. ) 
387,  35  Jur.  1117;  Bennett's  Estate, 
13  Phila.   (Pa.)  331,  37  Leg.  Int.  105. 

l4Cliew  r.  Farmers'  Bank,  2  Md. 
Ch.  231. 

15  §§    835,    836. 


16  Butler  r.  Fayerweather,  91  Fed. 
458,  63  U.  S.  App.  120,  33  C.  C.  A. 
625  (decided  under  the  New  York 
statiite)  ;  In  re  Cunnion,  201  N.  Y. 
123,  Ann.  Cas.  191 2A  834,  94  N.  E. 
648,  afjxrming  judgment  135  App.  Div. 
864,  120  N.  Y.  S.  266;  Bethany  M.  E. 
Church  V.  Brooks,  143  App.  Div. 
085,  128  N.  Y.  S.  250;  Matter  of 
Sears,  33  Misc.  141,  68  N.  Y.  S.  363. 
See  also  In  re  Coleman,  111  N.  Y. 
220,  19  N.  E.  71;  Loder  v.  Whelpley, 
111  N.  Y.  239,  18  N.  E.  874,  rever.iing 
1  Dem.  368;  Scott  v.  Ives,  22  Misc. 
749,  51  N.  Y.  S.  49 ;  Mertens  v.  Wake- 
field, 35  Misc.  501,  71  N.  Y.  S.  1062: 
Gick  r.  Stumpf,  126  App.  Div.  54S, 
110  N.  Y.  S.  712;  In  re  Francis.  73 
Misc.  148.  132  N.  Y.  S.  695;  In  re 
Seymour,  76  Misc.  371,  136  N.  Y.  S. 
942. 

The    following    cases    were   decided 


212 


PKIVILKGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§   120 


testator  requests  his  attorneys  to  sign  a  will  as  attesting  wit- 
nesses, he  in  effect  consents  that  whenever  the  will  is  offered  for 
probate  they  may  be  called  as  witnesses  and  testify  to  any  facts 
within  their  knowledge  necessary  to  establish  its  validity,  and 
waives  the  requirement  of  secrecy.  This  exception  has  been  gen- 
erally recognized,^'  and  applied  to  instruments  other  than  wills. ^' 

§  120.  Communications  in  Relation  to  Contemplated  Vio- 
lation of  Law.  —  A  connnnnication  between  attorney  and  client, 
in  order  to  be  privileged,  must  be  lawful ;  if  it  is  unlawful,  pub- 
lic policy  forbids  its  concealment.^^  The  rule  which  protects  con- 
fidential communications  from  disclosures  is  defensive,  not  offen- 
sive. It  is  intended  for  use  as  a  shield,  not  as  a  sword.^°  Com- 
munications made  to  counsel  prior  to  the  commission  of  a  crime 
which   is  contemplated  by  the  so-called   client,   and   in  reference 


before  §  83G  (X.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.) 
was  enacted  in  its  present  form : 
In  re  Chapman,  27  Hun  573:  In  re 
Chase,  41  Hun  203,  4  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
195;  In  re  Austin,  42  Hun  516,  4 
N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  666;  Matter  of  Smith, 
61  Hun  101,  15  N".  Y.  S.  425;  Sheri- 
dan V.  Houghton,  6  Abb.  X.  Cas.  234, 
16  Hun  628;  In  re  Boury.  8  X.  Y. 
St.   Rep.   809. 

"^1  California. — In  re  Wax,  106  Cal. 
343,  39  Pac.  624;  In  re  MuUin,  110 
Cal.  252,  42  Pac.  045. 

Georgia. — O'Brien  r.  Spaldiiijf,  102 
Ga.  490,  31  S.  E.  100,  66  Am.  St. 
Rep.  202. 

Indiana. — Pence  v.  Waugh,  135  Ind. 
143,  34  X.  E.  860. 

Io)i:a. — Denning  /".  IJutclier,  91  la. 
425,  59  X.  W.  69. 

Nrhrasla. — Brown  r.  ]>ro\vii,  77 
Neb.  125,  108  X.  \V.  180. 

New  YorA-.— Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  83(1; 
In  re  Oagan,  20  X.  Y.  S.  426,  folloir- 
inq  In  ro  Cob-man,  111  X.  Y.  220,  19 
N.  K.  71.  Src  iilso  tilt-  cases  cited  in 
tin-    prcci'ding    note. 


IFi.scows/ii. — Mc^faster  r.  Scriven, 
85  Wis.  162,  oa  X.  W.  149,  39  Am. 
St.  Rep.   828. 

18  See  infra,  %  126. 

19  Wade  V.  Ridley,  87  Me.  368,  32 
Atl.  975;  People  v.  Wickes,  112  App. 
Div.  39,  51,  20  N.  Y.  Crim.  9,  98  X. 
Y.  S.  163;  In  re  Cole,  7  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    114,  6  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  2,975. 

A  communication  made  to  a  lawyer 
in  an  effort  to  enlist  his  services  in 
inducing  a  briber  to  disgorge  a  cer- 
tain fund  put  up  by  him  as  the  price 
of  certain  legislation,  is  not  a  privi- 
leged communication.  State  v.  I-,eh- 
nian.    175  Mo.   619,   75  S.  W.   139. 

A  communication  made  by  a  client 
to  liis  former  attorney  is  not  privi- 
leged where  it  contains  a  threat  to 
commit  a  crime.  In  re  Young,  59 
Ore.  348,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  1310,  116 
Pac.   95,  1060. 

20  Tn  re  Xiday.  15  Idaiio  559.  98 
Pac.  845;  Brigham  v.  McDowell,  19 
Xeb.   407,   27   X.   W.   384. 


§    1:^0] 


PIUVILKCJKI)    COMMUNICATIONS. 


213 


to  the  perpetration  thereof,  or  for  the  purpose  of  being  guided 
or  assisted  therein,  are  in  no  sense  privileged,  and  the  attorney 
may  testify  thereto,^  providing,  of  course,  that  evidence  thereof 
be  otherwise  competent.^  The  duty  which  an  attorney  owes  to 
society,  and  to  the  intended  victims  of  the  crime  contemplated 
by  his  client,  is  higher  in  character  than  his  duty,  if  there  is  any, 
to  one  who  consults  him  for  such  unlawful  purposes.^  One  who 
is  actually  engaged  in  committing  a  wrong  can  have  no  privileged 
witness,*  nor  is  it  a  part  of  an  attorney's  duty  to  assist  in  the 
commission  of  a  crime. ^     The  relaxation  of  the  rule  in  this  re- 


l  England.— V^eg.  v.  Cox,  ]4  Q.  B. 
D.    153. 

United  States.— U.  S.  v.  Lee,  107 
Fed.  702.  See  also  Alexander  v.  U. 
S.,  138  U.  S.  353,  11  S.  Ct.  350,  34 
U.   S.    (L.   ed.)    954. 

Connecticut. — State  r.  Barrows,  52 
Conn.    323. 

Iowa. — State    v.    Kidd,    89    la.    54, 

56  N.  W.  263. 

Massachusetts. — Doherty  v.  O'Cal- 
laghan,  157  Mass.  90,  31  N.  E.  726, 
34  Am.  St.  Rep.  258,   17  L.R.A.  188. 

Michigan. — People    r.   Van   Alstine, 

57  Midi.  69,  23  N.  W.  594. 
Missouri. — State    v.    Faulkner,    175 

Mo.  546,  75  S.  W.  116;  Hamil  c.  Eng- 
land, 50  Mo.  App.   338. 

New  Jersey. — Matthews  v.  Hoag- 
land,  48  N.  J.  Eq.  455.  21  Atl.  1054. 

New  Mexico. — Lockliart  v.  Wash- 
ington Gold  etc.,  Min.  Co.,  16  N.  M. 
223,   117   Pac.   833. 

New  York. — People  f.  Farmer,  194 
N.  Y.  251,  87  N.  E.  457;  People  r. 
Petersen,  60  App.  Div.  118,  15  N.  Y. 
Crim.  421,  69  N.  Y.  S.  941;  Utica 
Bank  v.  Mersereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528, 
49  Am.  Dec.  189:  Coveney  v.  Tanna- 
hill,  1  Hill  33,  37  Am.  Dee.  287; 
Goodenough  r.  Spencer,  46  How.  Prac. 
347 ;  People  v.  Blakeley,  4  Park.  Crim. 
176. 


North  Carolina. — Hughes  r.  Boone, 
102  X.  C.  137,  9  S.  E.  286. 

Oklahoma. — Morris  v.  State,  6 
Okla.   Crim.   29,   115   Pac.   1030. 

Oregon. — See  In  re  Young,  59  Ore. 
348,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  1310,  116  Pac. 
95,    1060. 

Tca^as.— Orman  v.  State,  22  Tex. 
App.  604,  3  S.  W.  468,  58  Am.  Rep. 
662;  Everett  v.  State,  30  Tex.  App. 
682,    18    S.   W.   674. 

Utah. — People  v.  Mahon,  1  Utah, 
205. 

2  On  a  trial  for  murder,  an  attor- 
ney employed  by  the  prisoner  on  the 
day  of  the  commission  of  the  alleged 
crime,  to  draw  for  him  certain  papers, 
viz.,  a  lease  and  receipt,  cannot  be 
compelled  to  testify  to  the  drawing 
of  such  papers  by  him  or  to  the  con- 
tents thereof,  nor  as  to  the  state  of 
either  of  the  papers  when  delivered 
to  the  prisoner,  where  such  papers 
are  not  in  any  manner  necessarily 
connected  with  the  perpetration  of 
any  crime,  and  they  cannot  of  them- 
selves in  any  way  aid  in  the  com- 
mission of  any  fraud  or  crime.  Gra- 
ham V.  People,  63  Barb.   (X.  Y.)   468. 

3  State  V.  Barrows,  52  Conn.  323. 

4  Lanum  v.  Patterson,  151  111.  App. 
36. 

6  Matthews   v.  Hoagland,   48   N.   J. 


214: 


PRIVILEGED    COMMLWICATIOISrS. 


[§   121 


spect  is  not  in  contravention  of  sound  public  policy,  but  rather 
tends  to  the  maintenance  of  a  higher  standard  of  professional 
ethics,  by  preventing  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  from 
operating  as  a  cloak  for  wrongdoing.^  In  I*^ortli  Carolina  this 
exception  to  the  rule  seems  to  be  confined  to  such  intended  acts, 
on  the  part  of  the  client,  as  are  criminal  per  se,  as  distinguished 
from  those  M'hich  are  merely  malum  prohibitum.''  But  state- 
ments regarding  the  commission  of  a  crime  already  committed, 
made  by  the  part}^  committing  it  to  an  attorney  at  law  when 
consulting  him  in  that  capacity,  rest  upon  an  entirely  different 
footing;  these  are  privileged  communications;  and  this  is  true 
even  though  the  purpose  of  the  interview  was  to  devise  means  to 
escape  the  consequences  of  the  crime. ^ 

§  121.  Communications  in  Furtherance  of  Fraudulent  Pur- 
pose. —  Where  an  attorney  is  consulted  for  the  purpose  of  ob- 
taining advice  as  to  the  perpetration  of  a  fraud,  or  in  aid  or  fur- 
therance thereof,  the  communications  made  to  him  by  one  having 
such  purpose  in  view  are  not  privileged.^  If  the  client  discloses 
his  fraudulent  purpose,  and  the  attorney  does  not  join  in  the 
scheme  but  repudiates  all  connection  with  it,   there  cannot  be, 


Kq.  4.55,  21  Atl.  1054,  wherein  it  was 
said  that  if  the  client  consults  the 
lawyer  with  reference  to  the  perpe- 
tration of  a  crime,  and  they  co-oper- 
ate in  effecting  it,  there  is  no  privi- 
lege, for  it  is  no  part  of  an  attorney's 
duty  to  assist  in  crime;  in  sucli  case 
he  ceases  to  be  counsel  and  becomes 
a  criminal.  If  he  refuses  to  be  a 
party  to  the  act,  still  there  is  no  privi- 
lege, because  he  cannot  properly  be 
consulted  professionally  for  advice  to 
aid  in  the  perpetration  of  a  crime. 

8  I.anum  v.  Patterson,  151   111.  App. 
.'iii. 

7  Hughes   r.   lioone,    102   N.   C.    1:57, 
9  S.  E.  28(;. 

8  Alexander    v.    U.    S.,    i;)8    U.    S. 


353,  11  S.  Ct.  350,  34  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
954. 

9  England. — In  re  Postlethwaite,  35 
Cli.  D.  722. 

Missouri. — Weinstein  r.  Reid,  25 
Mo.  App.  41. 

Nebi-aska. — Brigham  v.  McDowell, 
19  Neb.  407,  27  N.  W.  384;  In  re 
Watson,  83  Neb.  211,  119  N.  W.  451. 

New  York. — See  Utica  Bank  r. 
Mersereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  528,  49  Am. 
Dee.  18!). 

VV.ras.— Ilyman  r.  Grant,  102  Tex. 
50,  112  S.  W.  1042;  Taylor  r.  Evans, 
29   S.   W.   172. 

Washington. — Collins  v.  Hoffman, 
02   Wash.  278,  113  Pac.  625. 

Wisconsin. — Dudley  i'.  Beck,  3  Wis. 
274;   Dunn  v.  Amos,  14  Wis.  lOG. 


§    122]  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIOXS.  215 

properly  speaking,  professional  employment  to  effect  such  pur- 
pose, and  consequently  there  is  no  privilege;  if  the  client  does 
not  frankly  and  freely  disclose  his  object  and  intention,  as  well 
as  the  facts,  there  is  no  confidential  disclosure  and,  of  course,  no 
privilege ;  ^°  if  the  attorney,  knowing  the  facts,  agrees  to  aid  the 
client  in  the  perpetration  of  the  fraud,  he  then  becomes  a  party 
to  the  transaction,  and  the  communications  made  to  him  cease 
to  be  entitled  to  privilege  from  disclosure.^^  Thus,  a  communi- 
cation ceases  to  be  privileged  where  the  client's  purpose  is  to 
cheat  or  defraud  his  creditors,^^  as,  for  instance,  by  a  fraudulent 
conveyance  of  his  property  ^^  or  an  attempted  avoidance  of  bank- 
ruptcy or  insolvent  laws.^*  A  mere  suggestion  of  fraud,  how- 
ever, is  not  enough  to  warrant  the  court  to  compel  the  disclosure 
of  statements  made  by  a  client  to  his  counsel ;  ^*  nor  Avill  the  privi- 
lege be  disregarded  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  client 
contemplated  some  conduct  which  might  render  him  liable  to  a 
civil  action  by  reason  of  actual  or  constructive  fraud.'^®  And  it 
has  been  held  that  this  exception  does  not  apply  in  the  case  of  an 
executed  transfer  of  property,  even  though  it  may  have  been  in 
fraud  of  creditors.^''' 

§  122.  Handling  of  Client's  Funds  or  Property. — An  at- 
torney may  be  required  to  state  whether  he  has  not  received  cer- 
tain money  of  his  client,  and,  if  so,  whether  he  has  paid  it  over, 
and  also  to  state  when  he  paid  it,  and  to  whom ;  ^*  the  theory  being 

10  Matthews  r.  Hoagland,  48  X.  J.  15  Higbee  v.  Dresser,  103  Mass.  523. 

Eq.   4.55,  21  Atl.   1054.  See   also  Dewey   r.  Komar,   21   S.   D. 

"Matthews  r.  Hoagland,  48  N.  .T.  117,    110   X.   W.   90. 

Eq.  455,  21  Atl.  1054.    See  also  §  120.  16  Supplee  r.  Hall,  75  Conn.  17.  52 

i2Hamil   r.   England,   50   Mo.   App.  Atl.  407,  96  Am.  St.  Rep.  188. 

338.  i7Hartness  r.  Brown,  21  Wash.  G5o, 

13  In  re  Bellis,  3  Ben.  386,  3  Fed.  59  Pac.  491.  See  also  Hollenback  r. 
Cas.  No.  1,274;  Tyler  v.  Tyler,  126  Todd,  119  111.  543,  8  N.  E.  829;  Utiea 
111.  525,  21  N.  E.  616,  9  Am.  St.  Rep.  Bank  r.  Mersereau,  3  Barb.  Ch.  (X. 
642:   Hamil  r.  England,  50  Mo.  App.  Y.)   528,  49  Am.  Dec.  189. 

338;  Stone  r.  Stitt,  56  Tex.  Civ.  App.  18  Comstock    r.    Paie,    18    La.    479; 

465,    121    S.   \Y.   187.  Fulton  r.  Maccracken,  18  Md.  528.  81 

14  In  re  Bellis,  3  Ben.  386,  3  Fed.  Am.  Dee.  620;  Johnson  r.  Patterson, 
Cas.  Xo.  1,274;  Taylor  v.  Evans,  13  Lea  (Tenn.)  626;  Aultman  r.  Rit- 
(Tex.)    29   S.   W.   172.  ter,  81  Wis.  395,  51  X.  W.  569;  Koe- 


216 


PKIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  123 


that  whenever  an  attorney  or  counselor  receives  money  or  other 
property  of  his  client,  he  becomes,  to  that  extent,  an  agent  or  at- 
torney in  fact,  and,  when  interrogated  concerning  the  disposition 
of  such  money  or  property,  he  is  bound  to  answer.^^  No  pro- 
fessional confidence  is  violated  by  an  attorney  in  answering  ques- 
tions of  this  character,  even  though  he  obtained  knowledge  there- 
of in  his  professional  capacity .'^°  So,  also,  counsel  may  testify 
as  to  the  instructions  given  him  by  his  client,  and  as  to  the  client's 
approval  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  attorney.^ 

§  123.  Employment  and  Compensation  of  Attorney.  — 
The  rule  making  communications  between  attorney  and  client 
privileged  from  disclosure  does  not  apply  where  the  inquiry  is 
confined  to  the  fact  of  the  attorney's  employment,  and  the  name 
of  the  person  employing  him.^  An  attorney  may  also  be  com- 
pelled to  disclose  the  character  in  which  his  client  employed  him, 
whether   as   executor,   trustee,   or   on   his   private   account ;  ^   the 


ber   V.  Soiners,    108   Wis.   497,   84  N. 
W.   99],  52  L.R.A.   512. 

19  Ex  p.  Gfeller,  178  Mo.  248.  77 
S.  W.  552;  Foster  v.  Wilkinson,  37 
Hun  (N.  Y.)  242,  244;  Rochester 
City  Bank  v.  Suydam,  5  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  254;  Matter  of  Merriam,  27 
App.  Div.  112,  50  N.  Y.  S.  114;  Phoe- 
Ims  /■.  Webster,  40  Misc.  528,  82  N. 
Y.  S.  8G8;  Howe  v.  Stuart,  68  Misc. 
352,  123  N.  Y.  S.  971,  reversing  67 
Misc.  240,  124  N.  Y.  S.  416. 

20  Ex  p.  Gfeller,  178  Mo.  248,  77 
S.   W.   552. 

iHrigham  v.  McDowell,  1!)  Neb. 
407,  27  N.  W.  384. 

Z  Alabama. — Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.  t'. 
Yeates,  67  Ala.  164;  White  r.  State, 
86  Ala.  69,  5  So.  674;  Soutliern  IJitu- 
litiiic  Co.  V.  liugliston,  58  So.  450. 

California. — Satterlee  v.  Bliss,  36 
Cal.  489;  Security  L.  &  T.  Co.  (;.  Es- 
tiidillo,    134  Cal.   Ulfi.   66   Pac  2r.7. 

Connectiriit. — 'riiiiiir's  AjiiHal,  72 
Conn.   :!05,  4)    At!.   .ilO. 


Georgia. — Alger  v.  Turner,  105  Ga. 
178,   31    S.   E.  423. 

Louisiana. — Shanghnessy  v.  Fogg, 
15  La.  Ann.  330. 

Maine. — Gower  r.  Emery,  18  Me. 
79. 

Minnesota. — Eickman  f.  Troll,  29 
Minn.   124,   12  X.  W.  347. 

Nebraska. — Brigham  r.  McDowell, 
19  Neb.  407,  27  N.  W.  384. 

New  YorA-.— Mulford  r.  Muller,  3 
Abb.  App.  Dec.  330;  Hampton  r.  Boy- 
Ian,  46  Hun  151,  10  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
788;  Welti  v.  Cohen,  157  App.  Div. 
65,  141  N.  Y.  S.  670. 

Pennsylvania. — Beeson  r.  Beeson,  0 
Pa.  St.  279.  See  also  Jeanes  r.  Fri- 
(Icnbcrg,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  199,  .1  Pa. 
L.  J.   65. 

Tras/n'nr/<o«.— Stanley  /'.  Stanley, 
27  Wasli.  570,  68  Pac.  187:  Collins 
r.  Iloirnian,  62  Wash.  278,  Ann.  Cas. 
191 3 A   1,   1  13  Pac.  625. 

3  Bcckwitli    r.    Benner,    6    C.    &    P. 


§    124]  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  217 

terms  of  the  employment;*  when  the  relationship  began  and 
ended ;  ^  and  whether  he  was  instructed  by  one  person  to  follow 
the  directions  of  another.®  Bnt  the  rnle  itself  cannot  be  en- 
croached npon  in  making  inquiries  of  this  character.'  Thus  the 
attorney  of  a  plaintiff  in  ejectment  cannot  be  made  to  testify 
whether  his  client,  an  administrator,  had  not  employed  him  to 
sne  for  his  individual  benefit.®  So,  also,  it  is  well  settled  that 
an  attorney  may  be  examined  as  to  his  fee,  the  contract  therefor, 
and  the  amount  thereof;  these  matters  being  deemed  to  be  facts 
within  his  own  knowledge,  rather  than  confidential  communica- 
tions.^ But  even  matters  of  this  nature  have,  in  some  cases,  been 
considered  privileged.^**  Thus  where  a  client  was  charged  with 
stealing,  among  other  things,  ''one  hundred  and  sixty  dollars  of 
current  silver  coin  of  the  United  States,"  it  was  held  to  be  error 
to  allow  his  attorney  to  testify  that  he  paid  him  as  a  retainer 
"forty-five  dollars  in  silver  and  five  dollars  in  gold,"  because  the 
transaction  was  a  privileged  communication.^^ 

§  124.  Address,  Identity,  and  Handwriting  of  Client.  — 
An  address  given  by  a  client  to  an  attorney,  while  consulting  him 

G81,  25  E.   C.  L.  595;    Beeson  v.  Bee-  right    as    administrator     of     Thomas 

son,  9  Pa.  St.  279.  Stephens,   in   whom  a  demise   is   laid 

4  Collins  V.  Hoffman,  62  Wash.  278,  in    the    declaration,    we  are    strongly 
Ann.  Cas.  1913A  1,  113  Pac.  625.  impressed  tliat  such  inquiry  does  in- 

5  Shanghnessy  v.  Fogg,  15  La.  Ann.  ^'^^'■'^  the  disclosure  of  a  confidential 
33Q_  communication  —  for      the      question 

6Gower  v.  Emery,  18  Me.  79.  ^*^^^'^^  covertly  a  disclosure  of  a  dis- 

7  Matter  of  Shawmut  Min.  Co.,  94      ^^^'"^^^  "^  ^'^le  for  the  estate  he  rep- 
App.  Div.  156,  87  N.  Y.  S.  1059.  lesents."     Doe  r.  Roe,  37  Ga.  289. 

auje   ii  X-  Jill  9  Smithwick  v.  Evans,  24  Ga.  461; 

8  If  the   question   propounded   had 

,         -J,       XI  ■       ,        •        •  Strickland   v.    Capital   City   Mills.   74 

stopped     with     the     simple     inquiry      ,,    ^  ^^  g_  ^\         ^  L.R.A.(N.S.) 

whether  they   had    been   employed    by  ^^O;  Moats  ..  Rymer,  18  W.  Va.  642, 

John  L.  Stephens  to  bring  this  eject-  ^^    ^^^_    ^^^^     ^^3       g^^    ^j^^    j^    ^^ 

ment   suit,    it    could    not   be   affirmed  j^^^^^,,,^^    g    Hask.    17,    7    Fed.    Cas. 

that  a  direct  answer  to  it  would  in-  j^q    3  qqq 

volve  a  breach   of  professional   confi-  10  Liggett  v.  Glenn,  51  Fed.   381,  4 

dence;  but  when  it  seeks  to  elicit  as  U.  S.  x4pp.  438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286  (decided 

a    fact   that    they    were    employed    to  under  the  Missouri  statute) . 

maintain  the  individual  claim  of  John  n  State  v.  Dawson,  90  Mo.   149,   1 

U.  Stephens  to  the  land,  and  not  his  S.   W.    827. 


218 


PKIVILEGED    COM.MU^»^ICATIONS. 


[§  124 


in  a  professional  capacity  on  a  business  matter,  for  the  purpose 
of  enabling  the  attorney  to  comminiicate  with  the  client  in  re- 
spect thereto,  is  usually  regarded  as  a  privileged  communication,^'' 
subject  only  to  the  exception  that  the  court  has  the  right,  during 
the  pendency  of  the  action,  to  direct  the  plaintiff's  attorney  to 
disclose  the  client's  address,  providing  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  still  exjsts.-^^  Where  such  relation  has  ceased  to  exist,  how- 
ever, the  court  will  not  compel  the  disclosure  of  the  client's  ad- 
dress.^* The  court  may  also  compel  an  attorney,  during  the 
])endency  of  a  cause,  and  perhaps  thereafter  should  occasion  there- 
for arise,  to  identify  his  client. ^^  The  court  has  a  right  to  know 
that  the  client,  whose  secret  is  treasured,  is  actual  flesh  and  blood ; 
and  to  demand  his  identification,   for  the  purpose,   at  least,  of 


12  Matter  of  Trainor,  146  App.  Div. 
117,   130  N.  Y.  S.  682. 

13  United  States.— V.  S.  v.  Lee,  107 
Fed.   702. 

Maine. — Alden  v.  Goddard,  7.3  Me. 
345. 

Xew  York. — Corbett  f.  Gibson.  18 
Hun  49;  Post  V.  Schneider,  59  Hun 
619  mem.,  13  N.  Y.  S.  396;  Ninety- 
nine  Plaintiffs  r.  Vanderbilt,  4  Duer 
032;  Matter  of  Maleom,  129  App. 
Div.  226,  113  N.  Y.  S.  606,  reversing 
00  Misc.  324,  113  N.  Y.  S.  255;  Bob- 
ling  V.  Bronson,  130  App.  Div.  895, 
115  N.  Y.  S.  29;  Matter  of  Trainor, 
146  App.  Div.  117,  130  N.  Y.  S.  682; 
O'Connor  v.  O'Connor,  62  Misc.  53, 
115  N.  Y.  S.  965;  Richards  v.  Pvich- 
ards,  64  Misc.  285,   119  N.  Y.  S.  81. 

"If  it  may  be  urged  that  the  court 
should  not  compel  an  attorney  to  give 
up  information  received  from  his 
client  vvhicii  should  Itotray  the  client 
to  the  authorities,  thus  putting  him 
in  the  position  of  an  informer  against 
ilia  client,  yet  if  the  attorney  knew 
the  usual,  general  residence  of  his 
client,  where  he,  in  the  usual  course 
of  l)Usiiic8H  relations,  may  be  found, 
iind    wlierc    lie    miglit    be    expected    to 


be,  provided  he  was  not  concealing 
himself  from  apprehension,  but  was 
living  as  should  an  unoffending  citi- 
zen, then,  at  least,  the  information 
should  be  given."  U.  S.  v.  Lee,  107 
Fed.   702. 

14  Hooper  v.  Harcourt,  1  H.  Bl. 
(Eng.)  534;  Matter  of  Trainor,  146 
App.  Div.  117,  130  N.  Y.  S.  682;  Levy 
V.  Coy,  64  Misc.  39,  117  N.  Y.  S. 
949. 

15  United  States.— \J.  S.  v.  Lee,  107 
Fed.   702. 

Delaware. — In  re  Jones,  6  Penn. 
463,  70  Atl.  15. 

Kansas. — Arkansas  City  Bank  v. 
McDowell,  7  Kan.  App.  568,  52  Pac. 
56. 

Louisiana. — Shanghnessy  v.  Fogg, 
15  La.  Ann.  330. 

Massachusetts. — Com.  v.  Bacon,  135 
Mass.   521. 

New  Hampshire. — Brown  f.  Pay- 
son,  6  N.  H.  443. 

T^ew  York. — Havana  City  R.  Co.  v. 
Coballos,  25  Misc.  660,  56  N.  Y.  S. 
360;  Matter  of  Maleom,  129  App. 
Div.  226,  113  N.  Y.  S.  660,  reversing 
60  Misc.  324,  113  N.  Y.  S.  255. 


§    125]  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  210 

testing  the  statement  which  has  been  made  by  the  attorney  who 
places  before  him  the  shield  of  this  privilege.^^  So,  also,  an  at- 
torney may  be  called  as  a  witness  to  the  handwriting  of  his  client, 
providing  he  is  not  required  to  disclose  any  matter  of  confidential 
communication,  or  to  base  his  opinion  upon  any  statement  of  the 
defendant  to  him  as  counsel.^'  If,  however,  the  only  information 
the  attorney  has  on  the  subject  was  communicated  to  him  by  his 
client,  he  could  not  be  compelled  to  disclose  it.^' 

§  125.  Where   Attorney    Is    a    Party    to    Transaction.  — 

An  attorney  is  not  privileged,  as  a  witness,  from  disclosing  facts 
concerning  his  client,  where  he  himself  is  a  party  to  the  trans- 
action or  agreement  which  he  is  called  upon  to  disclose. ^^  Thus 
where  the  attorney  and  client  both  engage  in  committing  a  wrong- 
ful act,  the  client  cannot  prevent  a  disclosure  of  the  transaction 
by  the  attorney,  on  the  ground  that  the  latter  became  acquainted 
with  the  facts  as  his  legal  adviser.^"  It  has  been  said  that  this 
exception  to  the  rule  stands  upon  higher,  and  more  unequivocal 
ground,  than  any  of  the  others. ^^  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  if 
the  privilege  were  suffered  to  be  applied  to  such  cases,  a  wide 
door  would  be  opened  for  the  successful  perpetration  of  fraud 
and  crime.  Attorneys  would  be  selected  as  the  agents  or  trus- 
tees wherever  a  cover  of  darkness  was  needed ;  and  though  but 
few  might  be  found  base  enough  so  to  prostitute  their  high  and 
honorable  profession,  yet  the  character  of  the  whole  bar  would 
be  injured  and  degraded  by  the  conduct  of  those  few  for  whom 
the  temptation  would  be  too  great.^ 

16  U.  S.  V.  Lee,  107  Fed.  702;  Mar-  18  Johnson    V.    Daverne,    19    Johns, 

tin  V.  Anderson,  21  Ga.  301.  (N.  Y.)  135,  10  Am.  Dec.  198. 

l7Hurd  V.  Moring,   1   C.  &  P.   372,  19  Duffin  v.  Smith,  Peake  K  P.   (ed. 

11  E.  C.  L.  42.5;   Dul<es  v.  Davis,  125  1795  Eng.)  108;  Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg, 

Ky.    313,    101    S.    W.   390;    Brown   v.  3  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  Go. 

Jewett,    120    Mass.    215;    Johnson    v.  20  Dudley  t'.  Beck,  3  Wis.  274. 

Daverne,   19   .Jolms.    (N.   Y.)    134,   10  21  Jeanes  v.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 

Am.  Dec.  198;   Holthausen  v.  Pondir,  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 

55   Super.  Ct.  73,  18  N.  Y.   St.   Rep.  i  Jeanes  r.  Fridenberg,  3  Pa.  L.  J. 

3G0;   Jeanes   r.  Fridenberg,  3   Pa.   L.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  G5. 
J.  Rep.  199,  5  Pa.  L.  J.  65. 


220  PRIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS.  [§§    120,    127 

§  126.  Attorney  as  Subscribing  Witness.  —  An  attorney 
who  becomes  a  snbscribing  witness  to  a  writing,  even  though  he 
is  the  counsel  of  one  of  the  parties  thereto,  may  be  required  to 
testify,  as  fully  as  other  subscribing  witnesses,  to  the  execution, 
consideration,  and  the  circumstances  attending  the  execution  of 
such  writing,^  and  as  to  the  mental  competency  of  the  parties  at 
that  time.^  This  exception  also  applies  where  counsel  witnesses 
the  execution  of  wills.*  The  same  reason  would  render  admissible 
the  testimony  of  the  attorney  to  whom  and  in  whose  presence  an 
instrument  was  executed.*  But  the  right  to  privilege  from  dis- 
closure in  respect  to  confidential  communications  made  during 
the  preparation  of  the  instrument  is  not  affected.^  l^o  waiver, 
however,  results  from  requesting  an  attorney  to  become  a  sub- 
scribing witness  to  an  instrument  which  is  not  required  by  law 
to  be  witnessed.' 

§  127.  Disclosure  for  Protection  of  Attorney. — Whenever 
the  disclosure  of  a  communication,  otherwise  privileged,  becomes 
necessary  to  the  protection  of  the  attorney's  own  rights,  he  is 
released  from  those  obligations  of  secrecy  which  the  law  places 
upon  him.*  So,  too,  counsel  may  make  such  a  disclosure  when 
it  is  necessary  for  the  protection  of  those  with  whom  he  has  had 

2  Doe  V.  Andrews,  2  Cowp.    (Eng.)        74   S.   C.   IG,   54   S.   E.   220,   7   L.R.A. 
846;     Utica    Bank    i:    :Mersereau,    3       (N.S.)    426. 

Barb.  Ch.    (N.  Y.)    52S,  49  Am.  Dec.  6  Herman   v.   Schlesinger,   114  Wis. 

189;  Coveney  v.  Tannaliill,  1  Hill   (N.  382,  90  N.  W.  400,  91  Am.  St.  Rep. 

Y.)  33,  37  Am.  Dec.  287;  Rousseau  v.  922. 

Bleau,   131   N.  Y.   177,   30  N.   E.   52,  ^Gick    r.    Stumpf,    126    App.    Div. 

27    Am.    St.    Rep.    578,   reversing    60  548,  110  N.  Y.  S.  712. 

Hun  259,  14  N.  Y.  S.  712;  Hughes  r.  SArbuthnot     v.     Brookfield     Loan, 

Boone,   102   N.   C.   137,   9   S.   E.   286;  etc.,  Assoc,  98   Mo.  App.   382,   72   S. 

Moffatt  t'.  Hardin,  22  S.  C.  9;  Brazel  W.    132;    Mitchell    v.    Bromberger,    2 

V.   Fair,   26   S.  C.   370,  2   S.  E.  293;  Nev.  345,  90  Am.  Dec.  550;  Rochester 

Strickland   v.   Capital   City  Mills,   74  City    Bank    v.    Suydam,    5    How.   Pr. 

S.  C.  16,  54  S.  E.  220,  7  L.R.A.  (N.S.)  (K  Y.)    254;   Keck  v.  Bode,  23  Ohio 

420.  Cir.    Ct.   Rep.    413;    Minard    v.    Still- 

3  Boyle  V.  Robinson,   129   Wis.  567,  man,    31    Ore.    164,    49    Pao.    976.    05 
109  N,  W.  623.  Am.  St.  Rej).  815;   Koober  r.  Somers, 

4  See  §  119.  108  Wis.  497,  84  N.  W.  991,  52  L.R.A. 
5Strickhiii(l    c.    Ciiiiiiiil    City  Alills,       512. 


§  128] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUXlCATIOiS'S. 


221 


business  transactions  in  the  interest  of  his  client.'  Thus  the 
rule  as  to  privilege  has  no  application  where  the  client,  in  an 
action  against  the  attorney,  charges  negligence  or  malpractice,^" 
or  fraud,^^  or  other  professional  misconduct.^^  In  such  cases 
it  would  be  a  manifest  injustice  to  allow  the  client  to  take  advan- 
tage of  the  rule  of  privilege  to  the  prejudice  of  his  attorney." 
It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  the  same  necessity  which  creates 
the  exception,  limits  also  its  scope  and  effect,  and  if  a  disclosure 
of  the  communication  is  not  essential  to  preserve  the  rights  of  the 
attorney,  it  continues  to  be  privileged.'^*  Counsel  should  not,  in 
any  event,  disclose  more  than  is  necessary. ^^ 


Waiver. 

§  128.  Who  May  Waive  the  Privilege.  —  The  right  to  privi- 
lege from  disclosure,  to  which  communications  between  attorney 
and  client  are  entitled,  belongs  to  the  client,  and  not  to  the  at- 
torney,^^  and,  therefore,  the  client  may  renounce  or  waive  it 
at  his  pleasure,^'^  even  though  the  subject-matter,  respecting  which 
the  communications  were  made,  has  passed  to  a  third  person  who 


9  Cummings  r.  Irvin,  (Tenn.)  59 
S.  W.  ]53;  Koeber  v.  Somers,  108 
Wis.  497,  84  N.  W.  991,  52  L.R.A. 
512. 

10  Nave  V.  Baird,  12  Ind.  318;  Stern 
r.  Daniel,  47  Wash.  96,  91   Pac.  552. 

11  In  re  Postlethwaite,  35  CIi.  D. 
(Eng.)  722;  Pierce  v.  Norton,  82 
Conn.  441,  74  Atl.  680;  Olmstead  v. 
Webb,  5  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  38;  State 
r.  INIadigan,  66  Minn.  10,  68  N.  W. 
179. 

12  Olmstead  v.  Webb,  5  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  38;  Reavely  r.  Harris,  145 
111.  App.  545,  affirmed  239  111.  52G, 
88  N.  E.  238. 

Where  a  witness  intimates  in  her 
testimony  that  the  plaintiff's  attorney 
had  attempted  to  induce  her  to  give 
false  evidence,  it  is  not  error  to  per- 
mit the  attorney,  though  actively  en- 
gaged  in  the   trial,   to  be   sworn   and 


give  his  version  of  the  matter  with- 
out withdrawing  from  the  case 
Reavely  v.  Harris,  239  111.  526,  88 
N.  E.  238.     And  see  §  120. 

13  Stern  v.  Daniel,  47  Wash.  96,  91 
Pac.  552. 

14  Keck  V.  Bode,  23  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
Rep.   413. 

15  Mitchell  V.  Bromberger,  2  Nev. 
345,   90    Am.    Dec.    550. 

16  Chirac  v.  Reinicker,  11  Wheat. 
280,  6  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  474;  Liggett 
r.  Glenn,  51  Fed.  381,  4  U.  S.  App. 
438,  2  C.  C.  A.  286 ;  Granger  v.  War- 
rington, 8  111.  299;  Scott  r.  Harris, 
113  III.  447;  Aiken  v.  Kilburne,  27 
Me.  252 ;  Utica  Bank  v.  Mersereau, 
3  Barb.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dec. 
189;  Hanna  v.  Hutchings,  4  N.  Y. 
Leg.  Obs.  343;  State  l:  Hoben,  36 
Utah   186,  102  Pac.   1000. 

l7Goddard    v.    Gardner,    28    Conn. 


222 


rUlVILEGED    COMMLXICATIONS. 


[§  128 


objects  to  their  disclosure;  ^'  and,  upon  such  waiver  by  the  client, 
the  attorney  is  bound  to  answer. ^^  So,  also,  the  privilege  may 
be  ^vaived  by  the  client's  executor  or  administrator,^"  or  l^y  his 
heirs. ■^  It  has  been  held  that  the  successor  of  an  assignee  for  the 
the  benefit  of  creditors,  or  other  trustee,  cannot  waive  the  privi- 
lege of  his  predecessor  in  regard  to  communications  made  by  the 
latter  to  the  attorney  while  he  was  in  office.^  Where  there  are 
several  clients,  the  communications  made  to  their  common  attor- 
ney cannot  be  disclosed  unless  all  of  such  clients  consent  thereto,^ 
especially  where  such  disclosure  would  be  to  their  prejudice;* 
but  this  rule  does  not  apply  to  a  mere  nominal  party.^  The  mere 
fact  that  an  attorney  represents  several  persons  having  a  com- 
mon interest,  or  even  charged  with  the  commission  of  the  same 
crime,  does  not,  of  itself,  render  the  evidence  of  either  of  such 
clients,  as  to  the  communications  made  by  him  to  such  attorney, 
incompetent,  where  the  client  offers  himself  as  a  witness.^ 


172;  Phillips  V.  Chase,  201  Mass.  444, 
87  N.  E.  755,  131  Am.  St.  Rep.  400; 
Smith  t:  Crego,  54  Hun  22,  7  N.  Y.  S. 
86. 

18  Benjamin  v.  Coventry,  19  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  353. 

19  Lanura  r.  Patterson,  151  111.  App. 
36;  Leyner  r.  Leyner,  123  la.  185,  08 
X.  \V.  (528. 

20  Holyoke  v.  Holyoke,  (Me.)  87  Atl. 
40;  Brooks  v.  Holden,  175  Mass.  137, 
55  N.  E.  802;  Phillips  v.  Chase,  201 
Mass.  444,  87  X.  E.  755,  131  Am.  St. 
lU'p.  406:  Ex  p.  Gfellcr,  178  Mo.  248, 
77  S.  \V.  552. 

W  y.  Code  Civ.  I'roc.  §  836,  pro- 
vides tliat  the  personal  representative 
of  a  testatrix  may  waive  the  profes- 
sional privilege  of  a  medical  witness, 
but  makes  no  provision  as  to  sucii  a 
waiver  of  a  witness  dis(]ualified  as  tlie 
attorne\'  of  a  testator  under  section 
835.  Wallace  V.  Wallace,  137  X.  Y.  S. 
43. 


IFossler  v.  Schriber,  38  111.  172; 
Bannon  r.  P.  Bannon  Sewer  Pipe  Co., 
136  Ky.  556,  119  S.  W.  1170:  Hol- 
yoke V.  Holyoke,  (Me.)  87  Atl.  40: 
Phillips  V.  Chase,  201  Mass.  444,  87 
N.  E.  755,  131  Am.  St.  Rep.  406. 

2  Herman  i".  Schlesinger,  114  Wis. 
382,  90  X.  W.  460,  91  Am.  St.  Rep. 
922. 

3  Rochefoucauld  V.  Boustcad,  74  L. 
T.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  783;  Jahnke  v.  State, 
08  Xeb.  154,  94  N.  W.  158,  104  X.  W. 
154;  Utica  Bank  v.  Merseroau.  3 
Barb.  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  528,  49  Am.  Dec. 
189;  Chahoon  V.  Com.,  21  Gratt. 
(Va.)  822;  Herman  r.  Schlesinger. 
114  Wis.  382,  90  X.  W.  400,  91  Am. 
St.  Rep.  922.     See  g  105. 

4  Ilerpolslieimer  r.  Citizens'  Ins. 
Co.,  79  Xeb.  685,  113  X.  W.  152. 

5  Allen  r.  Harrison,  30  Vt.  219.  73 
Am.   Dec.  302. 

6Peoi)le  r.  Patrick,  182  N.  Y.  131, 
175,  74  X.  E.  843. 


§    120]  PKIVILEGED    COMMUXICATTOI«rS.  223 

§  129.  Manner  of  Waiving  Privilege  Generally.  —  The 
waiver  of  the  nilo  as  to  ])rivilo<i'ed  eomnnmications  docs  not  re- 
qnire  any  particular  formality  in  order  to  be  effective.  It  may 
either  be  express,  or  implied  from  the  conduct  of  those  who  would 
be  entitled  to  its  benefit;'  unless,  of  course,  it  is  regulated  by 
statute,  as,  for  instance,  in  l^ew  York.*  Thus  where  an  attorney 
is  called  by  the  adverse  part3%  and  his  client  fails  to  object  1o 
questions  calling  for  the  disclosure  of  confidential  communica- 
tions, the  privilege  is  lost;  such  inaction  being  deemed  a  waiver 
thereof.^  One  will  not  be  permitted  to  speculate  upon  the  evi- 
dence, and,  finding  it  adverse  to  him,  then  move  to  exclude  it.^° 
Of  course,  when  neither  the  form  of  the  question,  nor  the  pre- 
liminary answers  of  the  witness,  disclose  the  incompetency  of 
the  witness  or  his  evidence,  and  the  opposite  party,  as  soon  as  it 
appears  to  him,  promptly  moves  to  exclude  it,  he  is  not  in  de- 
fault.^^  ISTor  is  it  necessary  to  object  specifically  to  every  ques- 
tion, where  the  original  objection  properly  raises  the  question  of 
the  competency  of  the  witness.^^  It  has  also  been  held  that  when 
an  attorney,  who  has  been  called  as  a  witness,  objects  to  certain 
questions  on  the  ground  that  his  answers  thereto  will  necessitate 
the  disclosure  of  connnunications  made  to  him  by  his  client  in 
confidence,  the  attornej-  must  be  understood  as  making  such  ob- 
jection on  behalf  of  his  client ;  and  if  the  client  stands  by  and 
does  not  release  the  witness  from  the  obligation  not  to  reveal  the 
information,  he  must  be  understood  to  approve  the  objection  and 

7  Blackburn    i:.    Crawford,    3    Wall.  providing  for  such  waiver,  is  not  sui- 

175,  ]8  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   186;  Glover  v.  ficient. 

Patten,  165  U.  S.  394,  17  S.  Ct.  411,  9  Chase's  Case,  1  Bland   (Md.)   206, 

41   U.  S.  (L.  ed.)    760.  17   Am.   Dec.   277;    Brown   r.   Moosic 

8/n   New  York,   under  sec.   836   of  Mountain   Coal  Co.,  211  Pa.  St.  579, 

the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  the  at-  61  Atl.  76. 

torneys  for  the  i-espective  parties  may,  10  State    r.   Lehman,    175    Mo.    619, 

prior  to  trial,  stipulate  for  the  waiver  75  S.  W.  139. 

of  tlie  privilege;   but  if  not  so  stipii-  n  State    r.    Lehman,    175   Mo.    619, 

lated    for,    such    waiver    can   only   be  75  S.  W.  139,  foUoicing  State  r.  Foley, 

made   in  open   court,  on  the   trial   of  144  Mo.  618.  619,  46  S.  W.  733. 

the  action  or  proceeding.     A  paper  ex-  i£  Gabriel  r.  McMullin,  127  la.  426, 

ecuted  by  a  party,  prior  to  the  trial,  103  N.  W.  355. 


224 


PKIVILEGED    COMMUNICATIONS. 


[§  130 


to  insist  upon  liis  privilege.''^  A  waiver  of  protection  against  the 
disclosure  of  privileged  communications  may  be  withdrawn  at 
any  time  before  acted  npon.^*  A  contract  entered  into  between 
client  and  attorney,  for  the  purpose  of  binding  the  former,  that 
the  latter  may  at  any  time  divulge  information  or  knowledge  ac- 
quired during  the  professional  relation,  is  not  a  good  waiver  of 
the  privilege  of  confidence  and  secrecy,  and  is  void.^^ 

§  130.  Waiver  by  Giving  Testimony.  —  Where  the  client 
voluntarily  testifies,  as  a  witness,  to  confidential  communications 
made  by  him  to  his  attorney,  he  thereby  waives  the  privileged 
character  of  such  communications,  and  he  and  his  attorney  may 
then  be  fully  examined  in  relation  thereto.^®     Thus  it  has  been 


13  Chew  V.  Farmers'  Bank,  2  Md. 
Ch.  231. 

14  Herpolsbeimer  r.  Citizens'  Ins. 
Co.,  79  Neb.  685,  ]13  N.  W.  ]52. 

Thougli  a  party,  when  testifying, 
said  that  he  had  no  objection  to  an 
attorney,  whom  he  had  employed  in 
the  case,  being  called  as  a  witness,  an 
objection  by  that  party's  counsel  to 
the  attorney's  testifying  withdrew  the 
consent,  restoring  the  client's  right, 
and  rendering  the  attorney  incompe- 
tent to  testify.  Natlee  Draft  Horse 
Co.  V.  Marion  Cripe  &  Co.,  142  Ky. 
810,  135  S.  W.  292. 

15  In  re  Boone,  83  Fed.  944. 

16  United  States.— Uunt  r.  Black- 
burn, 128  U.  S.  464,  9  S.  Ct.  125,  32 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)   488. 

Alahfima. — Eldridgo  r.  State,  12(1 
Ala.  63,  28  So.  580. 

California. — See  'i'ibbet  r.  Sue,  125 
Cd.l.  544,  58  Paf.  KK);  Delger  r.  .lac- 
oba,  19  Cal.  A])]>.  107,   125  Pac.  258. 

Colorado. — Fearnlcy  r.  I-'ca'-nicy. 
44  Colo.  417.  98  Pac.  810;  Shoiinc  v. 
Harris,  22  Colo.  A  pp.  (i:{.  12:!  I'ac 
.•{.'iO. 

Connrcliiiit. —  Picicc  ;".  Xortoii,  82 
Conn.    Ill,  74   .\tl.  (iSi;. 


Georgia. — Becker  v.  Shaw,  120  Ga. 
1003,  48  S.  E.  408. 

Illinois. — Knight  r.  People,  192  111. 
170,  61  N.  E.  371. 

Indiana. — Oliver  v.  Pate,  43  Ind. 
132. 

loica. — Kelly  r.  Cummens,  143  la. 
148,  20  Ann.  Gas.  1283,  121  N.  W. 
540. 

Kansas. — Wilkins  v.  Moore,  20 
Kan.  538,  folloicing  State  v.  White, 
19  Kan.  445,  27  Am.  Rep.  137. 

Michigan. — Hartford  F.  Ins.  Co.  v. 
Reynolds,  36  Mich.  502. 

Missouri. — Pinson  r.  Campbell,  124 
Mo.  App.  260,  101  S.  W.  621. 

Nebraska. — -Cerny  r.  Paxton,  etc., 
Co.,  83  Neb.  88,  119  N.  W.  14. 

Xew  York. — People  t\  Patrick,  182 
X.  Y.  131.  74  N.  E.  843. 

Ohio.— King  r.  Barrett,  11  Ohio  St. 
261. 

Oregon. — In  re  Young,  59  Ore.  348. 
Ann  Cas.  1913B  1310,  116  Pac.  95, 
10(10. 

'/'eras. — Shelton  V.  Northern  Texas 
'I'raction  Co.  32  Tex.  Civ.  App.  507,  75 
S.  W.  338;  Yardley  r.  State.  50  Tex. 
Crini.  644,  100  S.  \V.  399,  123  Am.  St. 
Rep.  869. 


§   130] 


PRIVILEGED    COMMU^'ICATIO:^S. 


9  or. 


held  that  if  the  client,  in  his  testimony,  discloses  anything  in 
such  confidential  communications  material  to  his  side  of  the  cause, 
then  the  other  party  has  a  right  to  all  that  was  said  in  the  same 
conversation,  although  it  was  said  to  the  attorney  and  may  in- 
juriously affect  the  client's  case ;  "  and  evidence  to  this  effect 
may  be  introduced  either  in  chief  or  for  the  purpose  of  impeach- 
ment; ^*  thus  the  attorney  may  be  called  to  rebut  the  evidence 
given  by  his  client.^®  So,  too,  the  privilege  is  waived  where  the 
client  calls  his  attorney  as  a  witness,  and  questions  him  as  to 
the  communications  passing  between  them.^°  Such  waiver,  how- 
ever, extends  no  farther  than  the  subject-matter  concerning  which 
the  attorney  has  been  interrogated,^  and  if  he  has  not  been  ex- 
amined as  to  matters  of  privilege  between  him  and  his  client, 
there  is,  of  course,  no  waiver  thereof.^  A  waiver  also  results 
where  the  client  offers  in  evidence  written  communications  re- 
ceived by  him  from  his  attorney ;  '  or  where  a  client  calls  his 
agent  as  a  witness  to  testify  to  the  communications  made  by  such 


Utah.— State  i:  Hoben,  36  I'tali 
186,  102  Pac.  1000. 

Washington. — Sanpere  r.  Sanpair, 
57  Wash.  524,  107  Pac.  369. 

17  Young  V.  State,  65  Ga.  525 :  Wo- 
burn  V.  Henshaw,  101  Mass.  193,  3 
Am.  Rep.  333;  King  v.  Barrett,  11 
Ohio  St.   261. 

18  King  r.  Barrett,  11  Ohio  St.  261. 

19  Eldridge  v.  State,  126  Ala.  63,  28 
So.  580. 

20  United  States. — Crittenden  r. 
Strother,  2  Crancli  (C.  C.)  464,  6  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  3,394. 

Alabama. — Rowland  v.  Plummer,  50 
Ala.  182. 

California. — Wood  v.  Etiwanda 
Water  Co.,  147  Cal.  228,  81  Pac.  512. 

Hawaii. — Takamori  v.  Kanai,  11 
Hawaii  1. 

Illinois. — Fossler  v.  Schriber,  38 
111.  172. 

Massaohnsetts. — Brooks  v.  Holden, 
175  Mass.  137,  55  N.  E.  802. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 15. 


Missouri. — Riddles  r.  Aikin,  29  Mo. 
453. 

\ew  Yo7-Jc. — Smith  v.  Crego,  54 
Hun  22,  7  N.  Y.  S.  86. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Jones  r.  Xanta- 
liala  Marble,  etc.,  Co.,  137  N.  C.  237, 
49  S.  E.  94. 

West  Virginia. — See  Moats  v.  Ry- 
mer,  18  W.  Va.  642,  41  Am.  Rep.  703. 

1  Landsberger  r.  Gorham,  5  Cal. 
450.  See  also  Vaillant  v.  Dodemead, 
2  Atk.    (Eng.)    524. 

2  Montgomery  l'.  Pickering,  116 
Mass.  227;  Blount  v.  Kimpton.  155 
Mass.  378,  29  N.  E.  590.  31  Am.  St. 
Rep.  554;  Brown  v.  Brown,  77  Xeb. 
125,  108  X.  W.  180;  Tate  v.  Tate's 
Executor,  75  Va.  522. 

3  Western  Union  Tel.  Co.  v.  Balti- 
more, etc.,  Tel.  Co.,  26  Fed.  55; 
White  V.  Thacker,  78  Fed.  802,  41  U. 
S.  App.  745,  24  C.  C.  A.  374. 


226 


PRIVILEGED    COMMUXICATIOXS. 


[§    131 


agent,  to  the  attorney,  while  representing  the  client.*  But  the 
mere  fact  that  a  client  is  a  witness  in  his  own  behalf,  and  testi- 
fies generally  in  the  cause,  does  not  operate  as  a  waiver  of  his 
right  to  have  the  connnnnications  between  himself  and  his  at- 
torney kept  secret.^  That  a  client  on  cross-examination  testifies 
without  objection  that  he  had  not  made  a  certain  statement  to 
his  attorney  does  not  waive  the  privilege.®  Xor  does  a  client  lose 
the  benefit  of  the  privilege  where  he  is  compelled,  against  his 
protest,  to  disclose  such  confidential  statements.'^ 

§  131.  Waiver  by  Becoming  State's  Witness.  —  It  has  been 
held  that  one  charged  with  crime,  who  volunteers  to  testify  for 
the  prosecution,  should  be  required  to  give  a  full  and  complete 
statement  of  all  that  he  and  his  associates  may  have  done  or  said, 
relative  to  the  crime  charged,  no  matter  when  or  where  done,  or 
to  whom  said,  and  hence  should  not  be  allowed  the  benefit  of 
the  rule  as  to  privileged  connnnnications ;  ^  the  theory  being  that 
such  witness,  by  going  on  the  stand  and  acknowledging  his  par- 
ticipation in  crime,  waives  the  privilege  to  which  he  Avould  other- 
wise be  entitle<l.^  This  rule,  however,  has  been  disapproved  in 
some  jurisdictions;  thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  fact  of  a  client 
having  turned  state's  evidence  does  not  render  his  attorney  a  com- 
petent witness,  for  the  defense,  as  to  the  statements  made  to  him 
bv  such  client. ^° 


4  Louisville,  etc..  R.  Co.  V.  Hill.  115 
.\la.  .334.  22  So.  1C3. 

5  State  r.  Barrows,  .52  Conn.  32:5 ; 
ilontgomery  c.  Pickering,  110  ^lass. 
227;  Jones  V.  State,  65  Miss.  179,  3 
So.  379;  Duttcnhofer  v.  State,  34  Oliio 
St.  91,  32  Am.  Rep.  362,  practically 
oierruling  King  v.  Barrett,  11  Ohio 
St.  261  ;  State  r.  .James,  34  S.  C.  49, 
12  S.  K.  057. 

8  Seaboard  Air  Line  R.  Co.  r.  I'ark- 
'•r,    (Kla.)    62  So.  r,H<). 

7  I 'cop  If  /•.  Cravatli,  58  Misc.  154, 
1  10  \.  ^■.  S.  4r,4. 


8  Alderman  r.  People,  4  ^lieh.  414, 
69  Am.  Dec.  321  ;  People  /•.  Gallagher, 
75  Mich.  512,  42  N.  W.  1063:  Jones  v. 
State,  65  Miss.  179,  3  So.  379.  See 
also  State  v.  Nelson,  91  Minn.  143,- 
97  N.  W.  652 ;  People  r.  Patrick,  182 
N.  Y.  131,  74  N.  E.  843. 

9  People  r.  fiallagher,  75  Mich.  512, 
42  N.  W.  1063;  People  r.  Patrick,  182 
N.  Y.   131,  74  X.  E.  843. 

10  State  r.  .James.  34  S.  C.  49,  12  S. 
I'"-.  657:  Sutton  r.  State,  16  Tex.  App. 
490. 


,^     132]  PKIVILEGED    CO.M.MUXICATIO^"^S.  227 

§  132.  Effect  of  Waiver  at  Former  Trial.  —  The  authorities 
are  not  agreed  as  to  the  effect  of  the  waiver  of  a  privileged  com- 
miinication  at  one  trial,  upon  an  offer  to  introduce  the  same  evi- 
dence on  a  subsequent  trial.  Some  cases  hold  that  such  a  waiver 
cannot  be  recalled  after  it  has  been  acted  upon;  and,  therefore,  a 
waiver  at  one  trial  would  operate  as  a  waiver  of  the  same  matter 
at  a  later  trial. ^^  But  it  has  also  been  held  that  a  waiver  at  one 
trial  does  not  continue  so  as  to  be  effective  at  a  future  trial  of 
the  same  cause ;  ^^  and  again,  that  the  waiver  of  a  privileged  com- 
munication may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  before  it  has  been 
acted  on,  where  no  advantage  has  accrued  to  either  litigant  on 
account  thereof.''^  It  is  certain  that  the  erroneous  admission  of 
evidence  as  to  privileged  communications  at  one  trial  will  not 
entitle  such  evidence  to  be  admitted  at  another  trial. ^* 

"Green  r.  Crapo.  181  Mass.  55,  62  359,    54    L.R.A.    3fi4 ;    Briesenmeister 

N.   E.   956;    Mclvinney    r.   Grand   St.,  r.  Supreme  Lodge,  etc.,  SI  Mich.  525, 

etc.,  R.  Co.,  ]04  X.  Y.  352,  10  X.  E.  45  X\  W.  077;  Herpolsheinier  r.  Citi- 

544;     Schlotterer     r.    Brooklyn,    etc.,  zens'  Ins.  Co.,  713  Xeb.  6S5,  113  X.  W. 

Ferry  Co.,  89  App.  Div.  508.  85  X.  Y.  152. 

S.    847.     Compare  Grattan    v.   ^Ictro-  13  Herpolsheinier     r.    Citizens'    Ins. 

politan  L.  Ins.   Co.  92   X.  Y'.  274,  44  Co..  79  Xeb.  085,  113  X.  W.  152. 

Am.  Rep.  372.  14  Pliiladelphia    F.   Assoc,    c.   Flem- 

12  Burgess  v.  Sims  Drug  Co.,  114  la.  ing,  78  Ga.  733,  3  S.  E.  420. 
275,  86  X.  W.  307,  89  Am.  St.  Rep. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

RELATION  OF  ATTORNEY  AND  CLIENT— SUBSTITUTION  OF  ATTOR- 
NEYS—IMPUTED NOTICE  AND  KNOWLEDGE. 

Creation  of  Relation. 

§  133.  Retainer. 

134.  Necessity  of  Retainer. 

135.  Sufficiency  of  Retainer. 

136.  Who  ^lay  Employ  Attorney. 

Termination  of  Relation. 

137.  Generally. 

138.  By  Act  of  Client. 

139.  By  Act  of  Attorney. 

140.  By  Death  of  Client. 

141.  By  Death  of  Attorney. 

142.  By  Accomplishment  of  Purpose. 

Suhstitution. 

143.  Ri.nlit  to  Sul)stitution. 

144.  Snt)stitution   for   Cause. 

145.  .Sul)stitution  after  Judoment. 

146.  ]VIaniier  of  Effecting  Substitution. 

147.  Terms. 

148.  Determining;  Amount  Due  or  Existence  of  Lien. 

149.  Notice  of  Substitution. 
1.10.  Effect  of  Substitution. 

Imputed  Xotice  and  Knouiedge. 
151.  General   Kule. 

Creation   of  R  da  I  ion. 

§  133.  Retainer. —  Tlic  i-cliilion  of  nitorney  and  cliont  is 
cv('n\('(]  l)_v  tlic  ciiiiiloN  iiicnl  of  ill!  iittdi'iicv  to  advise  a  cliont  in 
rchif  ion  t<»  lii>  fii^lits.  diilics,  or  liahil  it  ics ;  oi-  to  try,  or  aid  in 
tryiiiir,   a    raiisc   vviicrciii    tlic   client    is   a   ]itii;aiit.      Engaging  an 

228 


§   133] 


EELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


229 


attorney  in  this  manner  is  called  a  "retainer,"  the  attorney  be- 
ing then  said  to  be  "retained"  by  the  client  who  thus  employs 
him.^  General  retainers  have  for  their  object  the  securing,  befoi-e- 
hand,  of  the  services  of  a  particular  attorney  or  counselor,  for 
any  emergency  that  may  afterwards  arise.  They  have  no  refer- 
ence to  any  particular  service,  but  take  in  the  whole  range  of 
possible  future  contention  which  may  render  attorneyship  neces- 
sary or  desirable.^  A  special  retainer  has  reference  to  a  particular 
case,  or  to  a  particular  service.  It,  however,  imposes  obligations, 
l^ro  liac  vice,  equally  binding  with  those  enjoined  by  a  general 


1  Knight  r.  Russ,  77  Cal.  410,  19 
Pac.  698;  Blackmail  r.  Webb,  38  Kan. 
G68,  17  Pac.  464;  Blair  v.  Columbian 
Fireproofing  Co.,  191  Mas.«.  .3.33,  77  N. 
E.  762. 

The  profession  of  attorney  includes 
much  more  than  the  mere  manage- 
ment of  the  prosecution  and  the  de- 
fense of  litigated  cases.  Com.  r.  Bar- 
ton, 20  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  447. 

"Retoiner"  Defined. — In  Black  man 
v.  Webb,  38  Kan.  668,  17  Pac.  464,  the 
court,  per  Valentine,  J.,  defined  "re- 
tainer" as  follows:  "'The  act  of 
employing  or  engaging  an  advocate, 
barrister,  attorney,  counselor,  solici- 
tor, or  proctor  to  appear  and  prose- 
cute or  defend.  Tiie  word  is  also  used 
for  the  notice  served  by  an  attorney, 
etc.,  on  the  opposite  party  or  attorney 
that  he  has  been  retained,  in  which 
use  it  is  by  elision  for  notice  of 
retainer;  and  for  the  fee  paid  to  a  law- 
yer u})on  his  vindertaking  a  cause,  in 
which  use  it  is  by  elision  for  retain- 
ing fee.'  (Abb.  L.  Diet.)  It  will  be 
seen  that  the  word  'retainer'  as  used 
in  cases  of  this  kind  means:  First, 
the  act  of  the  client  in  employing  his 
attorney  or  counsel;  second,  the  no- 
tice of  the  retainer  served  upon  the 
opposite  party  or  his  attorney;  third, 
the    retaining    fee." 


Unlicensed  Person  Aeting  as  At- 
torney.— Where  one  assumed  to  act  as 
the  hired  attorney  of  another,  and  the 
client  had  many  consultations  with 
the  former  as  attorney,  it  was  lield 
that  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  existed,  though  the  former  had 
not  tlien  been  admitted  to  practice. 
Sanguinetti  v.  Rossen,  12  Cal.  App. 
623,  107  Pac.  560. 

2Agnew  r.  Walden,  84  Ala.  .502,  4 
So.  672. 

In  Hefferman  v.  Burt,  7  la.  320,  71 
Am.  Dec.  445.  it  was  held  that  an  at- 
torney, wlien  employed  in  anticipa- 
tion of  a  suit,  had  as  much  power  to 
bind  his  client  before,  as  after,  tlie 
suit  had  been  commenced. 

But  in  Stone  v.  Bank  of  Commerce, 
174  U.  S.  412,  19  S.  Ct.  747,  43  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  1028,  the  court  .said:  "If 
before  the  commencement  of  any  suit 
an  attorney  assumes  to  act  for  his 
principal  it  must  be  as  agent  and  his 
actual  authority  must  appear,  and  if 
it  be  not  shown  it  cannot  be  inferred 
by  comparison  with  what  his  author- 
ity to  act  would  have  been  if  a  suit 
were  actually  pending  and  he  liad  in 
fact  been  retained  as  attorney  by  one 
of  the  parties." 


230  EELATIOX    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§    134 

retainer.  It  exacts  undivided  loyalty  and  allegiance  to  the  client. 
In  that  particular  service  the  attorney's  talents  and  skill 
belong  to  his  client.  These  he  must  bestow  with  all  the  zeal  and 
earnestness  of  his  nature,  and  in  all  the  methods  which  truth  and 
honesty  can  sanction.^  When  an  attorney  is  retained  to  prosecute 
or  defend  an  action,  his  entire  services  in  that  action  are  engaged 
for  his  client,  whether  he  is  ever  called  upon  to  perform  services, 
or  not.*  He  must  give  counsel  whenever  needed  or  called  for, 
must  acquaint  himself  with  the  case  and  its  wants,  must  render 
all  needed  professional  aid  in  the  preparation  of  the  case,  and 
must  give  his  earnest,  unflaggino-  attention  and  services  to  the  trial 
when  it  comes.  And  in  these  several  duties  he  must  not  relax 
in  zeal  until  there  is  a  judgment  in  the  trial  court,  or  other  ter- 
mination of  the  prosecution,  unless,  of  course,  the  relation  should, 
in  some  way,  be  terminated  permanently.^ 

§  134.  Necessity  of  Retainer.  —  While  every  attorney  regu- 
larly licensed,  and  duly  admitted  to  practice,  possesses  a  general 
license  to  appear  in  court  for  any  suitors  who  may  employ  him,  his 
license  is  not  of  itself  an  authority  to  appear  for  any  particular 
person.^  The  relation  of  attorney  and  client  can  be  created  only 
by  a  contract  of  employment,  express  or  implied,'''  and  commences 

3  Agnew    V.  W'aldcn,  84   Ala.   502,  4  Tico  Attorneys  Claiming  to  Be  Re- 
So.  672.  tained. — Wliere    two    inconsistent   an- 

4  Blacl<nian    r.   Webb.   :58   Kan.   6(58.  swers  are   filed  in   a  case  by  two   at- 
J7  Pac.  404.  toiney.s,  both  of  whom  claim  to  repie- 

5  Agnew  r.  Wahk-n,  S4  Ala.  502,  \  ^^^^  "t,,p  defendant,  the  court  must 
^°-  "'    •  first  determine  which  of  the  attorneys 

eCartwell   r.   Menifee,   2   Ark.   :]5(5;        .^    ^,,^    dofendant'.s    lawful    attorney, 

(lark  K.  Willett.  35  Cal.  534;   People  *        n        i    n 

'  and   it  IS  <Mror  to  allow  both  answers 

r.  Mariposa  Co.,  39  Cal.  083;  McAlex-  ^  ,.,  ,    ,  x      .    •    , 

'  .  „,     .,    ,.  ,.  to   rcinam   on    (ne  and   to  go  to   trial 

ander  r.  Wright,  3  T.  H.  :\Ion.    (Kv.)  ,   .   ^.„,^    ,  .     ^. 

,„„,„.  ^  .„  on  any  issue  over  plamtin  s  objection. 
]89,  16  Am.  Dec.  93.  ■  '  " 

,  i.     1        1         1  *i  Williams   v.    I  ncompahgre  Canal  (  o., 

(  ounsci     cannot     l)e     h(>ar(l     in     the  '      " 

,     ;  f  I      .    1      •    „   .        13   Colo.  469,  22  Pac.   800. 

ar;^'iiiiirnt  of  a  case  tor  wbicn  lie  is  not 

retained,  unless  retained  in  some  case  7  .4/a6omo.— Milligan     r.     Alabama 

where    a    similar    (|ueHtion    arises,    to  Fertilizer  Co..  89  Ala.  322.  7  So.  650. 

which  file  adverse  party  in  the  case  in  /llinoi.^.     De  Wolf  r.  Strader.  20  111. 

li<-aring    is    also    a    party.      Xaiier    i.  22.").  79  Am.   Dec  37  I  :   Kay  r.  Lobdell. 

'J'lumias,    i:;    Albn    (Mass.)    572.  21:!   III.  3S!),  72  N.  K.    1070.  a/ji/;/M/(// 


§   135] 


RELATION    OF    ATTOIJXEY    AND    CLIENT. 


231 


only  when  such  a  contract  has  been  entered  into.*  That  one  acted 
as  att(n-ney,  and  was  considered  as  snch  by  the  opposite  party, 
is  not  enough  to  show  a  retainer.^ 

§  135.  Sufficiency  of  Retainer. — The  employment  of  coun- 
sel does  not  ditl'er  in  its  incidents,  or  in  the  rules  which  govern 
it,  from  the  employment  of  an  agent  in  any  other  capacity  or  busi- 
ness.^" The  formal,  and  undoubtedly  the  better,  way  is  to  have 
the  contract  of  employment  reduced  to  writing;  and  all  careful 
practitioners,  as  well  as  careful  clients,  adopt  this  method  when 
they  can.  Even  though  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  original 
employment  of  counsel  are  such  as  to  render  the  procurement  of 
a  written  agreement  impracticable,  such  an  agreement  should  he 
entered  into  as  soon  as  conditions  permit.     The  contract  should 


]10  IlL  App.  230;  Francisco  r.  Dovo, 
231    IlL  402,  S3  N.  E.  205. 

I  QIC  a. —Bow  en  v.  ^tna  Indemnity 
Co..  151   la.  663,  131  N.  W.  1086. 

Kansftti. — Caldwell  r.  Bigger,  76 
Kan.  4!».  90  Pac.  1095. 

Krul iicl.-i/. — Hay  v.  Cole,  11  I>.  Mon. 
70. 

f.oiiisiana. — Cooley  v.  Cecile,  8  La. 
Ann.  51. 

Missiftsippi. — JNIcCreary  r.  lloopes, 
25  Miss.  428. 

Missouri. — State  r.  Hedgepetli,  125 
Mo.] 4,  28  S.  W.  160. 

Xew  York. — Burghart  V.  Gardner, 
3  Barb.  64:  Hoover  r.  Greenbaum,  61 
X.  Y.  305;  ^^■ilitesell  r.  New  .lersey 
&  H.  R.  R.  &  F.  Co.,  68  App.  Div.  82, 
74  N.  Y.  S.  217;  In  re  M.alcom,  12;) 
App.  Div.  226,  113  N.  Y.  S.  666,  re- 
rert^inci  60  :\lisc.  324,  113  N.  Y.  S. 
255. 

Pcnn.fif!  rania. — Stout  Coal  Co.  c. 
O'Donnell.  4  Kulp  495. 

South  Cfirolina. — E.k  p.  Lynch,  25  S. 
C.   193. 

Tcj-fls.— Smith  r.  Smith,  23  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  .'04,  55  S.  W.  541. 


8  Stone  V.  Bank  of  Commerce,  174 
U.  S.  412,  19  S.  Ct.  747,  43  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  1028:  Dentzel  r.  City,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  90  Md.  434,  45  Atl.  201 ;  Kee- 
nan  v.  Scott,  64  VV.  Va.  142,  61  S.  E. 
806. 

9  Hotchkiss  I'.  LeRoy,  9  .Johns. 
(N.  Y.)    142. 

It  is  a  qucsticn  of  fact  for  the  jury 
whetlier  one  who  has  been  accustomed 
to  take  judgments  for  a  party  is  au- 
thorized to  act  as  his  attorney  in  a 
given  case,  as  in  indorsing  a  writ  and 
di reeling  a  sheriff's  levy.  Alspaugh 
V.  Jones,  64  N.  C.  29. 

The  fact  that  an  attorney  received 
from  the  sheriff  the  surplus  upon  an 
execution  sale,  after  satisfaction  of 
the  judgment,  does  not  estahlisli  the 
relation  of  attorney  and  client  be- 
tween him  and  the  judgment  debtor, 
it  appearing  that  thei'e  was  nothing 
in  the  transaction  requiring  the  ad- 
vice or  opinion  of  an  attorney.  ^Ic- 
Creary  r.  Hoopes,  25  Miss.  428. 

10  Detroit  V.  Whittemore,  27  ^Mich. 
281. 


232 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   135 


particularly  specify  the  services  required,  the  sum  to  be  paid 
therefor,  and  the  conditions,  if  any,  upon  which  performance  de- 
pends ;  but  no  greater  formality  is  required  than  in  the  case  of 
any  other  con  tract, ^^  excepting  where  a  power  of  attorney  is  re- 
quired. Such  a  document  must,  of  course,  be  drawn  in  accordance 
with  the  usual  formalities  with  respect  to  the  powers  granted,  exe- 
cution, and  acknowledgment,^'^  But  there  is  no  actual  necessity 
of  a  written  agreement.  An  attorney  may  be  employed,  and  the 
relation  of  attorney  and  client  established,  just  as  effectively  by 
an  oral  agreement.^'  As  soon  as  the  client  has  expressed  a  desire 
to  employ  an  attorney,  and  there  has  been  a  consent  by  the  at- 
torney to  act  for  hiuL  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  has  been 
established.'^*  l!^or  need  there  be  an  express  agreement  to  employ 
an  attorney ;  ^^  a  suificient  employment  may  be  implied  from  the 
facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case.^®     Thus  the  employment  may 


11  See  Wlieeler  v.  Harrison.  94  Md. 
147,  50  Atl.  523. 

"Yet  it  is  still  strongly  recom- 
mended to  attorneys  for  their  own 
protection  and  character,  to  obtain 
from  tlieir  clients  written  authority 
to  sue  or  defend,  in  order  that  the 
same  maj'  be  the  more  easily  suscepti- 
ble of  proof."  State  v.  Houston,  3 
Harr.    (Del.)    15. 

Construction  of  detainer. — Where 
the  contract  of  retainer  is  so  badly 
expressed  tliat  it  was  not  easy  to 
gather  just  what  it  meant,  but  it  ap- 
peared tliat  it  was  dictated  liy  the  de- 
fendant himself,  a  lawyer,  and  that 
tlie  f)laintifr  could  not  read  Kn^^lish, 
and  knew  notlunj^  about  wiiat  slie 
si^nicd,  except  as  defendant  ('X|)laine(l 
it  lo  lirr,  it  was  licld  tliat  the  plain- 
till"  W.I-  cntitlid  to  the  most  favorable 
readiri;,'  of  wlijcli  tlif  lanjiiia;^!'  was 
capable.  ilarka\y  /'.  Xisiiian.  !)(i  N. 
Y.  S.  2U. 

12  See  W  ri;.'ht  r.  Kllison.  I  Wall.  Hi, 
17  r.  S.  (  f..  ed.)  ',')')');  Newliciiie  C. 
.Jones,   (i:{    \.    (  .   •;()(). 


13  Smith  r.  Black,  51  Md.  247. 

14  In  re  Tyler,  71  Cal.  353,  12  Pac. 
289,  13  Pac.  169;  Smith  v.  Black,  51 
Md.  247 ;  Keenan  r.  Scott,  04  W.  Va. 
137,  61   S.  E.  806. 

15  Hallam  r.  Bardsley,  7  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
.-)16. 

i6Blyth  V.  Fladgate,  [189]]  1  Ch. 
(Eng.)  337;  Cooper  v.  Hamilton,  52 
111.  122:  Burnham  v.  Roberts,  70  111. 
19;  Franklin  County  v.  Layman,  145 
111.  138,  33  N.  E.  1094;  Blackman  V. 
Webb.  38  Kan.  668,  17  Pac  404;  Per- 
ry V.  Lord,  111  Mass.  504;  McCurdy 
f.  New  York  L.  Ins.  Co.,  115  Mich.  20, 
72  N.  W.  996;  Keenan  r.  Scott.  64  W. 
Va.  142,  61  S.  E.  806. 

"TJic  payment  of  a  fee  is  the  most 
iiniial  and  wcic/httf  item  of  evidence  to 
fstaJilisli  flic  rfhifi<iii.':liip  of  client 
and  attorney,  but  it  is  by  no  means 
indispensable.  'I'he  essential  feature 
of  the  professional  relation  is  the 
fait  of  employment  t<>  do  soiiietliiiig  in 
the  client's  behalf,  'i'liere  must  be  an 
agreement,  e\|iiess  iir  implied,  for 
compensation:     bnt    wlietlier    payment 


§  1-5] 


ItELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLTKNT. 


233 


be  established  b}-  the  correspondence  of  tlie  parties;  ^'  or  by  know- 
ingly accepting-  the  services  of  an  attorney,^^  even  thougli  such 
attorney  was  not  actually  employed,^®  or  paid,  In-  the  beneficiary 
of  his  labors,^"  or  by  facts  constituting  an  estoppel.''^  So,  the  rela- 
tion of  attorney  and  client  may  be  established  by  consulting  with, 
and  being  advised  by,  counsel ;  ^  or  by  employing,   directing,  or 


is  madf  in  part  or  in  wliok-  by  re- 
tainer in  advance  is  not  material. 
Nor  is  it  even  indispensable  that  the 
compensation  should  be  assumed  by 
tlie  client.  Ordinarily  it  is  so  from 
the  nature  of  the  employment,  which 
in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  involves 
the  guarding  or  enforcement  of  the 
client's  interest  against  an  adverse 
one,  and  is  therefore  exclusive.  But 
even  adverse  interests  if  to  be  am- 
icably adjusted  may  be  represented 
by  the  same  counsel,  though  the  cases 
in  which  this  can  be  done  are  ex- 
ceptional and  never  entirely  free  from 
danger  of  conflicting  duties.*'  Lawall 
r.  Groman,  180  Pa.  St.  532,  37  Atl.  98, 
57  Am.  St.  Rep.  1502. 

17  0rr  r.  Brown,  09  Fed.  210,  30  U. 
S.  App.  405,  16  C.  C.  A.  197;  Clark  v. 
Lilliebridge,  45  Kan.  507,  20  Pac.  43; 
Hardesty's  Succession,  Mann.  Unrep. 
Cas.  (La.)  Ill;  Eickman  r.  Troll,  29 
Minn.  124,  12  N.  W.  347;  Arrington 
r.  Arrington,  102  N.  C.  491,  9  S.  E. 
200. 

18  United  .S7a^cs.— Central  Trust  Co. 
r.  Ingersoll,  87  Fed.  427,  59  U.  S.  App. 
242,  31  C.  C.  A.  41. 

Connecticut. — Newton  v.  Haniden, 
79  Conn.  237,  64  Atl.  229. 

Ccorgia. — Hood  r.  Ware,  34  Ga. 
328. 

loira. — Oltrogge  r.  Schutte,  51  la. 
279,  1  N.  W.  544;  Plank  i:  Hertha, 
132  la.  213,  109  N.  W.  732. 

Kcntiiclcy. — Hallam  v.  Bardsley,  7 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  516. 


Mnii/liind. — Ward  v.  Koenig,  106 
Md.  433.  67  Atl.  230. 

Micliigan.—yicL'nrdy  r.  New  York 
L.  Ins.  Co.,  115  Mich.  20,  72  N.  W. 
996,  4  Detroit   Leg.  N.   738. 

ypic  Hampshire. — Goodall  v.  Bedel. 
20  N.  H.  205;  Stevens  v.  Reed.  37  N. 
H.  49. 

New  York. — Watrous  v.  Kearney, 
11  Hun  584;  Bogardus  r.  Livingston, 
7  Abb.  Pr.  428. 

A  county  board  orally  agreed  witli 
an  attorney  to  retain  him  in  certain 
contemplated  litigation,  and  promised 
to  enter  this  agreement  in  tlicir  rec- 
ords, but  failed  to  do  so.  Tlic  attor- 
ney had  previously  been  retained  by 
the  board  in  a  written  agreement  for 
the  services  under  which  he  was  paid. 
The  attorney  having  rendered  tlie  ser- 
vices contemplated  under  tlie  oral 
agreement,  it  was  held  that  tlie  county 
could  not  avoid  liability  therefor  on 
the  ground  that  the  retainer  was  not 
in  writing;  it  could  not  thus  take 
advantage  of  its  own  wrong.  Frank- 
lin County  V.  Layman,  145  111.  138, 
33  N.  E.  1094. 

19  Plank  V.  Hertha,  132  la.  213.  109 
N.  W.  732. 

20  Page  V.  Trutch,  3  N.  Y.  Wkjy. 
Dig.  167. 

21  Kelly  V.  Ning  Yung  Benev.  Assoc, 
2  Cal.  App.  460,  84  Pac.  321. 

1  Perkins  r.  West  Coast  Lumber  Co., 
129  Cal.  427,  62  Pac.  57;  Ryan  c 
Long,  35  :\Iinn.  394.  29  N.  \Y.  51 ; 
Severance  V.  Bizallion,  67   Misc.   103, 


234 


EELA.TION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§    13G 


requesting  an  attorney  to  perform  professional  services.^  But 
the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  does  not  necessarily  result  from 
the  performance  of  gratuitous  services.^  After  the  relationship 
of  attorney  and  client  has  begun,  any  subsequent  changes  in  the 
agreement  as  to  compensation  or  as  to  the  property  out  of  which 
compensation  is  to  come  will  not  aifect  the  relationship.*  The 
necessity  of  proving  employment,  and  the  evidence  thereof,  are 
considered  in  connection  with  actions  for  compensation.^ 

§  136.  Who  May  Employ  Attorney. — Anyone  who  is  capa- 
ble of  entering  into  contractual  relations  with  another,  may  em- 
ploy an  attorney.^     So,  one  having  authority  to  do  so,  may,  as 


121  X.  Y.  S.  627;  Sheehan  v.  Erbe, 
103  App.  Div.  7,  92  N.  Y.  S.  862:  Fore 
r.  Chandler,  24  Tex.  146. 

2  Davis  r.  Kline,  96  Mo.  401,  9  S. 
\V.  724,  2  L.R.A.  78;  Eoff  r.  Irvine, 
108  Mo.  378,  18  S.  \V.  907,  32  Am.  St. 
IJep.  609;  Arnold  r.  Pvobertsoii.  3 
Daly    (X.  Y.)   298. 

Compare  Xorwood  r.  Barcalow,  6 
Daly  (X.  Y.)  117,  wlierein  it  appears 
that  on  defendant's  application  to  a 
l)ank  for  a  loan  secured  by  a  real 
estate  mortgage,  he  was  promised  the 
loan  provided  liis  title  proved  satis- 
factory. The  bank  I'eferred  defend- 
ant to  its  regular  attorneys,  with 
wiiom  he  left  his  muniments  of  title. 
The  attorneys  examined  the  title,  and 
rejected  it,  and  it  was  held  that  tlie 
relation  of  attorney  and  client  was 
not  tlicreby  raised,  so  as  to  cliai'ge  de- 
feiiil;int  with  fees  for  the  examination 
(if   his   tith'. 

3'ilius  it  has  been  iichi  that  llie 
fai't  that  an  alt<>rii('\'  pi'i  foiini'd  scr 
\iccs  without  com  pi'iisaf  ion.  iIdcs  not 
hIiow  thiit,  he  was  nut  Mutiimizrd  to 
a<t,  for  liis  cii.'nt.  I'aikaid  /.  Ddfck 
!l   Wasli.  .")(i2,  :iS  I'ac.  JUS. 

I!ut   when'   one   of    tlic    parties   to  a 


contract  is  an  attorney,  and  he  offers 
to,  and  does,  draw  the  necessary  pa- 
pers free  of  charge,  that  fact  does  not 
establisli  the  relationship  of  attorney 
and  client  between  them,  or  impose 
upon  tlie  attorney  the  duties  and  obli- 
gations of  that  relationship.  Stout 
V.  Smitli,  98  N.  Y.  25,  50  Am.  Uep.  632. 

4  Keenan  v.  Scott,  64  \V.  Va.  137, 
61  S.  E.  806. 

5  See  infra,  §§  507,  508. 

6  Interveners  May  EmpJnii  Counsel. 
— A  court,  in  granting  a  motion  to 
permit  parties  to  intervene  as  de- 
fendants, has  no  authority  to  require 
them  to  appear  and  defcTid  tlirougli 
tlic  attorney  employed  by  tlie  original 
defendant.  O'Connor  r.  Ifendrick,  90 
App.  Div.  432,  86  X.  Y.  S.   I. 

Members  of  a  eitii  council  are  en- 
titled to  employ  their  own  i)rivate 
counsel  to  defend  them  on  tlu'ir 
appeal  from  an  order  in  nKiiuhimus 
against  tin-  council,  aU'eeting  them 
])(rs()nally  as  to  costs,  and  need  not 
dc|icnd  (111  tile  city's  coiporatiiin  coun 
scl  by  w  iiom  tiiey  siiould  ajipear  as 
a  li(i;ird.  People  /'.  ( luggenheimer,  29 
Misc.  553,  61  N.  Y.  S.  961. 


§    13G]  KELATIOI!^^    OF    ATTORNEY    AIS  D    CLIENT.  235 

the  agent  of  another,  employ  counsel  on  behalf  of  his  principal ;  ' 
in  such  case,  however,  there  is  no  relation  of  attorney  and  client 
between  the  attorney  and  the  agent.'  So,  it  seems,  one  of  sev- 
eral defendants,  sned  on  a  joint  contract,  all  of  whom  are  dnly 
served  with  process,  may  employ  an  attorney  to  conduct  the  suit 
on  behalf  of  all.  This  is  on  the  ground  of  implied  authority.^ 
It  is  clear,  of  course,  that  in  the  absence  of  express  or  implied 
authority,  one  person  cannot  employ  counsel  to  act  for  another.^" 
Thus  an  attorney  employed  to  defend  the  rights  of  one  joint  mart- 
gagee,  is  not  authorized  to  appear  and  defend  for  the  other  joint 
mortgagee.^^  Xor  does  the  institution  by  an  elector  of  proceed- 
ings to  contest  an  election,  create  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  between  the  attorney  appearing  therein,  and  a  candidate 
who  did  not  advise  a  suit  and  who  was  not  consulted  with  refer- 
ence to  it.^^  There  is  no  question  as  to  the  right  of  persons  acting 
in  a  fiduciary,  or  other  representative  capacity,  to  employ  coun- 
sel in  the  interest  of  those  whom  they  represent ;  thus  as  to  execu- 
tors, administrators,  guardians,  trustees,  committees,  etc.,  when 
there  is  any  occasion  for  legal  advice  or  aid.  In  all  such  cases 
the  question  usually  involved  is  the  right  to  charge  the  persons 
represented  with  counsel  fees,  and  the  amount  thereof.  In  so 
far  as  these  matters  are  relevant  to  this  work,  they  have  been 
considered  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  compensation.^^  A 
witness,  as  such,  cannot  have  an  attorney;  and  though  an  accom- 
plice may  act  by  advice  of  his  attorney  as  to  whether  he  will  be- 
come a  witness  for  the  prosecution,  when  he  once  becomes  such 
a  witness,  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  ceases  quoad  hoc}* 

7  Garrison    v.    McGowan,     48     Cal.  78G:    Fowler    r.    Iowa    Land    Co.,    IS 

5n2:   Pittsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Wool-  S.  D.  131,  99  N.  W.   ino.i. 

ey,     12     Bush      (Ky.)    451:     Howard  8  Porter   r.   Peckham.   44   Cal.   204. 

V.  Howard,  11  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)  80.  9  Wliitney  r.  Silver,  22  Vt.  034. 

An   atjenfs   act   in    sending   process  1"  Fayette    County    /".    Chitvvood,    S 

served   on    ]ua   jirinc-ipal   to  attorneys  Ind.    504:    Cass    County    r.    Poss.    40 

"for   such    action    as   they   may   deem  Ind.  404:    Bradley  r.  Welch,   100  Mo. 

necessary"     in     contemplated     litiga-  258,   12   S.  W.  911. 

tion,   amounts   to   a    retainer   of   sucli  H  Bowen   r.  Wood,  35   Ind.  208. 

attorneys   for  the   principal.     Toplitz  12  Hersleb  r.  'Sloss,  28  Ind.  354. 

r.   Meyer.  34   Misc.   786,   69   X.  Y.  S.  13  See  infra.  §§  509-515. 

849:  Swartz  r.  :\Iorgan,  163  Pa.  St.  H  Wight  v.  Rindskopf,  43  Wis.  344. 
195,    29   Atl.    974.    43    Am.    St.    Rep. 


236 


EELATION  OF  ATTOE>^EY  AND  CLIENT. 


[§  137 


Term'ination  of  Belation. 

§  137.  Generally.  —  In  addition  to  the  causes  specified  in 
the  other  sections  of  this  subdivision,  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  will  be  severed  by  the  disability  of  the  attorney  to  perform 
the  dnties  assumed  by  him;  thns  as  to  disability  caused  by  ill- 
ness/* disbarment, ^^  or  removal  from  the  state;  but,  notwith- 
standing his  removal  from  the  state,  an  attorney  continues  to 
represent  his  client  in  actions  previously  commenced  until  an- 
other has  been  substituted  in  his  place ;  ^'^  and  the  fact  that  one 
of  the  members  of  a  firm  permanently  removes  from  the  state, 
does  not  prevent  the  remaining  partner  from  continuing  the  em- 
ployment.^® The  mere  fact  of  the  dissolution  of  a  law  firm  does 
not  of  itself  dissolve  the  agency  of  each  member ;  ^^  and  the  client 
may  look  to  each  of  them  for  the  performance  of  a  duty  con- 
fided to  them.*^"  The  relation  of  attorney  and  client  may  be  ter- 
minated by  the  dissolution  of  a  partnership  which  employed  the 
attorney,^  or  by  the  insanity  of  the  client,^  or  by  war ;  ^  but  war 
does  not  necessarily  dissolve  or  suspend  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client.* 


15  Corson  v.  Lewis,  77  Neb.  446,  109 
X.  W.  735. 

16  Movers  v.  Graham,  15  Lea 
(J'enn.)     'u . 

See  infra,  §  703. 

17  Faufrhnaii  r.  Elizabeth,  58  N.  J. 
L.  .309,  33   Atl.   212. 

18  1)e  Vail  V.  De  Vail,  57  Ore.  128, 
109  Pac.   755,  110  Pac.  705. 

19  IJow  lis    r.   Allen,  22   Fed.  805. 
ZO.McCoon   /■.  (;albraith,  29   Pa.   St. 

293.      See    also    supra,    §    141. 

1  LoeliraiH'  r.  Stewart,  (Ky.)  2  S. 
W.  903. 

2  Chase  i.  Cliase,  103  liid.  IVS.  71 
X.   K.  485. 

i'.iit  se(^  McKenna  c.  (Jarvcy,  191 
.MaHs.  9(;,  77  N.  K.  782,  hoMiii-  tliat 
where,  pcndintr  proeeedinjrs  for  flie 
|)rol);iti'  of  a  will  iiiid  lln'  :i  |i|i(iiiit  iiiriit 


of  an  executor,  petitioner  became  in- 
sane, but  no  other  adjudication  of 
insanity  than  mere  commitment  to  a 
hospital  was  shown,  the  relation  of 
attorney  and  client  existing  between 
petitioner  and  his  attorney  of  record 
continued  as  to  all  matters  included 
in  the  original  contract  of  employ- 
ment, notwithstanding  such  alleged 
insanity. 

3  Harper  r.  Harvey.  4  \V.  \a.  539, 
wherein  it  was  held  that  the  relation 
of  attorney  and  client  ceased,  or  was 
suspended,  when  the  former  went  into 
flic  lines  of  the  Confederate  States, 
and  that  no  payment  to  him  would 
he  good. 

4  nice  r.  O'Keefe,  (5  lleisk.  (Tenn.) 
(138. 


§   138] 


KKLATION    OF    ATTOKNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


237 


§   138.  By  Act  of  Client. — A  client  may  revoke  the  author- 
ity of  his  attorney  at  any  time  with  or  without  cause,^  even  where 


5  United  States. — Isaacs  r.  -Abra- 
ham, 6  Rep.  737,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,094;  Sloo  r.  Law,  4  Blatchf.  2()8,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  ]  2,958;  Wilkinson  r. 
Tilden,  21  Blatchf.  192;  In  re  Pas- 
chal, 10  Wall.  483,  20  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
992;  In  re  Wilson,  12  Fed.  235;  Ron- 
ald r.  Mutual  Reserve  Fund  L.  Assoc. 
30  Fed.  228;  Du  Bois  r.  New  York, 
134  Fed.  570,  G9  C.  C.  A.  112;  Silver- 
man r.  Pensylvania  R.  Co.,  141  Fed. 
382. 

Alabama. — Kelly  r.  Horsely,  147 
Ala.  508,  41   So.  902. 

California. — Faulkner  r.  Ilendy,  99 
Cal.  172,  33  Pac.  899;  Lee  v.  Superior 
Ct.,  112  Cal.  354,  44  Pac.  GG6;  Wood- 
bury r.  Nevada  Southern  R.  Co.,  121 
Cal.  165,  53  Pac.  450;  Gage  V.  At- 
water,  136  Cal.  170,  68  Pac.  581. 

Delaware. — Gibbons  v.  Gibbons,  4 
Harr.    105. 

District  of  Columbia. — Kappler  r. 
Sumpter,  33  App.  Cas.  404. 

Illinois. — Lynch  v.  Lyncli,  99  111. 
App.  454. 

Kentucky. — Henry  v.  Vance,  111 
Ky.  72,  63  S.  W.  273;  Root  v.  Mcll- 
vaine,  56  S.  W.  498 ;  O'Neal  r.  Spald- 
ing, 66  S.  W.  11  ;  Joseph  v.  Lapp,  78 
S.  W.  1119. 

Louisiana. — Louque  v.  Dejan,  129 
La.  519,  56  So.  427,  38  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
389. 

Maine. — White  r.  Johnson,  67  Me. 
287. 

Michigan. — Brown  v.  Brown.  How. 
N.  P.  94. 

Neic  Hampshire. — Wells  r.  Hatch, 
43  N.  H.  246. 

Islew  Jersey. — Hudson  Trust,  etc., 
Inst.  r.  Carr-Curran  Paper  Mills,  44 
Atl.  638. 


Sen-  York. — Tenney  f.  Berger,  93 
N.  Y.  524,  45  Am.  Rep.  263;  Jeffards 
r.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  49  App. 
Div.  45,  63  N.  Y.  S.  530;  Matter  of 
Mitchell,  57  App.  Div.  22,  67  N.  Y. 
S.  961  ;  Yuengling  v  Betz,  58  App.  Div. 
8,  68  N.  Y.  S.  574:  Bryant  r.  Brook- 
lyn Heiglits  R.  Co.,  64  App.  Div.  542, 
72  N.  Y.  S.  308 ;  O'Connor  v.  Hendrick, 
90  App.  Div.  432,  86  N.  Y.  S.  1; 
Anglo-Continental  Chemical  Works  v. 
Dillon,  111  App.  Div.  418,  97  N.  Y.  S. 
1081;  People  v.  Staten  Island  Bank, 
112  App.  Div.  791,  99  N.  Y.  S.  486; 
Johnson  r.  Ravitch,  113  App.  Div.  810, 
99  N.  Y.  S.  1059:  People  v.  Federal 
Rank,  114  App.  Div.  374,  100  N.  Y. 
S.  44;  Roake  r.  Palmer,  119  App.  Div. 
64,  103  N.  Y.  S.  862 ;  Jeny  i".  Merkle, 
128  App.  Div.  833,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1106: 
Matter  of  Prospect  Ave.,  85  Hun  257, 
32  N.  Y.  S.  1013;  O'Sullivan  r.  Metro- 
politan St.  R.  Co.,  39  Misc.  268,  79 
N.  Y.  S.  481;  Lederer  v.  Goldston,  63 
Misc.  322,  117  N.  Y.  S.  151;  Gardner 
r.  Tyler,  5  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  33 :  Trust  v. 
Repoor,  15  How.  Pr.  570;  Prentiss  v. 
Livingston,  60  How.  Pr.  380;  Ogden 
r.  Devlin,  45  Super.  Ct.  631;  Hunt's 
Estate,  Tuck.  55. 

Xorth  Dakota.  —  Schouweiler  v. 
Allen,  17  N.  D.  510,  117  N.  W.  866. 

Pennsylvania. — Com.  r.  Terry,  11 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  547;  Schafer's  Estate, 
39  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  384. 

Tennessee. — Y'oakley  r.  Hawley,  5 
Lea  670;  Moyers  r.  Graham,  15  Lea 
57. 

Texas. — Arrington  r.  Sneed,  18  Tex. 
135. 

Utah. — Sandberg  r.  Victor  Gold, 
etc.,  Min,  Co.,  18  Utah  66,  55  Pac.  74. 


238 


UKLATIO.X     OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[^'   i:)s 


the  fee  is  contingent,®  and  snbjeet  only  to  a  liability  for  the  serv- 
ices rendered.'  Xo  special  formality  is  required  to  eifect  the 
discharge,®  unless,  of  course,  the  relation  was  created  by  a  power 
of  attorney.^  Indeed,  the  right  of  a  client  to  so  discharge  his 
attorney  is  practically  indispensable  in  view  of  the  delicate  and 
confidential  relations  Avhich  exist  between  attorney  and  client, 
and  of  the  evil  to  the  client's  interests,  engendered  by  friction  or 


Wyoming. — Sheridan  I'oiiiity  v. 
Haniia,  9  ^Yyo.  368,  03  Pac.  1054. 

Where  one  of  several  heirs  procured 
from  the  other  heirs  a  power  of  attor- 
ney to  act  for  them  in  a  proposed  suit 
to  recover  land,  his  discliarge  of  an 
attorney  employed  by  him  to  bring 
the  suit  does  not  deprive  such  attorney 
of  the  right  to  bring  the  action  under 
a  contract  subsequently  made  by  him 
witli  one  or  more  of  the  otlier  heirs. 
Spears  r.  Ray,  49  S.  \V.  53.),  20  ivy. 
L.  Rep.  ]4(i-2. 

6  Joseph  V.  Lapp,  78  S.  \V.  HIO,  25 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1875;  Plummer  v.  Great 
Northern  R.  Co.,  GO  Wash.  214,  110 
Pac.    989,   31    L.R.A.(N.S.)    1215. 

In  Ronald  r.  Mutual  Reserve  Fund 
L.  Assoc,  30  Fed.  228,  the  court  said : 
"Contracts  like  that  in  the  present 
instance,  for  tlie  compensation  of  at- 
torneys to  be  paid  from  the  amount 
recovered,  and  contingent  upon  a  re- 
covery, are  not  to  be  construed  as  de- 
barring a  plaintifV  from  any  clumgt' 
of  attorney,  nor  as  giving  the  original 
attorney  an  absolute  control  of  tlie 
litigation  to  tlie  end.  Such  a  con- 
struction would  be  impolitic  in  its  re- 
sults, and  cannot  be  sustained.  The 
agreement  should  be  regarded  as  pro- 
viding for  the  mode  of  com|)ensation 
only,  and  subject  to  such  j'casonable 
changes  and  jjrovisions  as  sul)se(iueiit 
ciicumstances   may  make   jirojier." 

7  See  infra,  §  456.     See  also  In  re 


Robbins,  61  Misc.  114,  112  X.  Y.  S. 
1032,  affirmed,  132  App.  Div.  905,  116 
X.  Y.  S.  1146;  Schouweiler  v.  Allen, 
17  X.  D.  510,  117  X.  W.  866. 

In  State  r.  District  Ct.,  30  Mont. 
8,  75  Pac.  r)]i).  it  was  held  that  the 
guardian  of  an  incompetent  person 
was  entitled  to  have  the  attorney  who 
acted  for  the  incompetent  before  the 
guardian's  appointment  changed,  al- 
though no  payment  of  the  fees  of  the 
attorney  discharged  had  been  made. 

8  Schafer's  Estate,  39  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
384. 

\Yhere  a  client  wrote  to  his  attor- 
ney, "I  am  forced  ...  to  ask 
you  to  take  no  further  part  in  the 
case,  but  to  leave  it  to  me,"  it  was 
held  that  whether  or  not,  as  a  general 
rule,  an  order  of  court  is  necessary  to 
terminate  the  relation  of  attornej'  and 
client,  the  request  above  stated  must 
be  regarded  as  taking  the  cause  out 
of  control  of  the  attorney,  and  as  ab- 
solutely discluirging  him.  Ryan  v. 
Martin.  18  Wis.  672. 

9  \\'here  a  licensed  attorney  holds  a 
recorded  ]K)wer  of  attorney  from  his 
client,  to  appear  for  liiin  before  all 
courts  to  prosecute  ;inil  defend  all 
suits  as  occasion  siuill  require,  tlu'  au- 
thority cannot  be  terminated  by  pi-i- 
vate  letters  of  tlu'  client-  to  a  third 
person.  Girard  t'.  liirscii,  6  La.  Ann. 
651. 


138] 


DELATION    OF    ATTOKNEY    ANB    CLIENT. 


2:v.) 


distrust.^"  Xor  can  the  general  right  of  the  client  to  discharge 
his  attorney  be  aii'ected  by  any  previous  arrangement  subsisting 
between  them.^^  Upon  the  attorney's  discharge  the  rights  an<] 
duties  of  the  parties  as  attorney  and  client  cease.^^  Whether  a 
discharge  was  with,  or  without,  cause  l)ears  only  on  the  riglit  of 
the  attorney  to  compensation,  and  the  amount  thereof;  and  tliis 
feature  of  the  question  will  be  considered  in  that  connection.-'^ 
As  to  what  constitutes  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  discharge  of  an 
attorney  by  his  client,  although  no  hard  and  fast  rule  can  be  laid 
down,  it  may  be  said  generally  that,  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  being  one  of  mutual  trust,  confidence,  and  good  will,  any 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  attorney  which  must  necessarily  put 
an  end  to  these  justifies  the  client  in  terminating  the  relation.^* 
Thus  cause  for  discharge  has  been  said  to  exist  where  an  attorney, 
under  contract  to  render  services  for  his  client,  fails  to  pay  over 
on  demand  the  amount  due  the  client  under  the  contract. ^^  So, 
the  bringing  of  a  suit  by  an  attorney  for  fees  before  the  comple- 
tion of  his  services,  will  justify  the  client  in  discharging  him.^^ 
Where  the  attorney,  whose  discharge  is  desired,  appears  as  coun- 


10  Wilkinson  v.  Tilden,  21  Blatchf. 
(U.  S.)  192:  Henry  v.  Vance,  111  Ky. 
72,  63  S.  W.  273;  In  re  Dunn,  20") 
N.  Y.  398,  98  N.  E.  914. 

11  In  re  Paschal,  10  Wall.  483,  20 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  992;  Carver's  Case,  7 
Ct.  CI.  499;  People  r.  Norton,  10  Cal. 
436;  Henry  r.  Vance,  111  Ky.  72,  63 
S.  W.  273;  Roake  v.  Palmer,  119  App. 
Div.  64,  103  N.  Y.  S.  862;  as,  for  ex- 
ample, an  arrangement  for  a  contin- 
gent fee,  Root  v.  Mcllvaine,  (Ky.) 
56  S.  W.  498;  Breathitt  Coal,  etc.,  Co. 
v.  Gregory,  (Ky.)  78  S,  W.  148;  John- 
son r.  Ravitch,  113  App.  Div.  810,  99 
N.  Y.  S.  1059. 

12  Lynch  r.  Lynch,  99  111.  App.  454; 
Wells  r.  Hatch,  43  N.  H.  246;  Riebold 
r.  Hartzell,  23  N.  D.  264,  130  N.  W. 
247. 

13  See  infra,  §  451. 
i4Arrington   v.  Sneed,  18  Tex.  135. 


It  is  a  good  cause  for  terminating 
a  contract  by  which  an  attorney  was 
employed  so  long  as  his  ser\  ices 
siiould  be  satisfactory,  tliat  tlio  rela- 
tion between  tlie  attorney  and  the 
managing  officer  of  the  client  (a  cor- 
poration) has  become  strained,  and 
that  each  entertains  feelings  of  dis- 
trust and  ill  will  towards  the  other. 
Price  r.  Western  Loan,  etc.,  Co.,  35 
Utah  379,  19  Ann.  Cas.  589,  100  Pac. 
077. 

Where  a  party  deems  his  attonu»y 
to  hixve  improperly  acted,  he  should 
move  immediately  to  dismiss  him,  and 
not  wait  until  the  attorney  lias  pro- 
cured further  evidence  and  ]ire])ared 
tlie  case  for  trial.  The  Zilpha,  40  Ct. 
CI.  200. 

iSGoodin  r.  Hays.  88  S.  W.  1101, 
28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  112. 

ISArrington  r.  Sneed,  18  Tex.   135. 


24:0  KELATIOX    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§    138 

sel  of  record  in  pending  litigation,  and  it  is  necessary  to  substi- 
tnte  other  counsel  in  his  stead,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  in  many 
jurisdictions,  and  usual  and  proper  in  all,  to  apply  to  the  court, 
wherein  such  litigation  is  pending,  for  permission  to  make  such 
substitution,  whereupon  an  order  will  be  entered  as  the  facts  may 
warrant. ^'^  So,  also,  counsel  appointed  by  the  court,^®  or  by  offi- 
cers created  by  the  court,  such  as  receivers,  should  not,  as  a  gen- 
eral rule,  be  discharged  without  the  court's  consent.  Thus  where 
a  receiver  of  an  insolvent  corporation  was  acting  for  the  benefit 
of  the  creditors,  it  was  held  that  the  right  of  the  receiver  to  make 
a  change  of  attorneys  did  not  rest  entirely  upon  his  volition,  but 
that  the  court  had  the  right  to  examine  the  reasons  for  the  con- 
templated change,  and  to  determine  how  it  would  affect  the  in- 
terests of  the  beneficiaries  for  whom  the  receiver  w^as  acting;  the 
distinction  between  receivers  and  ordinary  clients  resting  upon 
the  fact  that  the  receiver  was  in  fact  at  all  times  subject  to  the 
direction  of  the  court  in  the  performance  of  his  duties  as  such, 
and  that  the  court  might  even  control  the  selection  of  his  coun- 
sel should  it  become  proper  to  do  so.'^^  But  where  the  receiver 
for  a  national  bank,  who  was  plaintiff  in  a  number  of  cases  brought 
for  the  collection  of  claims,  petitioned  for  the  exclusion  of  the 
attorney  of  record  (one  not  appointed  by  the  receiver)  in  such 
cases  from  further  appearance  therein,  the  court  said :  "Consider- 
ation for  the  rights  of  the  parties  wdiose  interests  are  represented 
by  this  receiver  requires  me  to  hold  that  in  all  pending  eases  in 
which  further  proceedings  or  some  further  action  of  the  court 
may  be  necessary,  the  receiver  has  the  right  to  dismiss  his  attor- 
ney at  pleasure  after  payment  of  lawful  charges  for  service^ 
rendered,  and  to  employ,  a  new  attorney  to  conduct  such  further 
proceedings  without  assigning  any  reason  for  his  action."  ^°  An 
attorney  is  of  course  entitled  to  notice  of  his  discharge.^  but  it 
U('('(|  luit  be  frtrmal,  auy  act  Ix^ing  sufficient  which  shows  an  in- 
tern imi   t<i  sc\(M'  ihc  I'fhitioii.^     So,  also,  pai'ties  dealing  with  an 

l7Sfo  ivfra,  §  14fi.  19  Pi-oplo  r.  Statcn  Tslaiid  TJank,  112 

18  .\ttorvr,,R  nppnintcil  hji  the  court  App.  Div.  701,  00  N.  Y.  S.  4S(). 

to    '!if''ni|    ;ihsctif    heirs    anil    Ii';,'ateo8  20  Tn  ro  TTornian.  50  Fed.  517. 

should    not   !)<•  arbitrarily   discliar^od.  1  Arrinjjton    r.    Snccd,    IS    Tex.    ^:^^}. 

I.f.'   r.   SiitMTJor  Court,    112  Cal.  334,  ZScliafcr's  Kstal.-.  :?!>  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 

4  \   Par.  r.fir).  .384. 


139] 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


211 


attorney  will  not  be  affected  by  tbe  revocation  of  his  authority  un- 
less they  have  notice  thereof.^  So  long  as  the  client  permits  one 
to  remain  his  attorney  of  record,  he  is  bound  by  any  act  which  by 
virtue  of  the  retainer  the  attorney  was  authorized  to  do,  as  against 
persons  ignorant,  without  fault  on  their  part,  of  the  attorney's 
discharge.*  The  acquiescence  of  a  client  in  an  attorney  continu- 
ing to  act  for  hiui,  is  equivalent  to  the  withdrawal  of  a  previous 
notification  that  he  would  no  longer  be  represented  by  such  at- 
torney.^ A  party  who  moves  to  dismiss  his  attorney  becomes 
chargeable  with  notice  of  wdiat  may  be  done  in  the  case,  and  should 
appear  when  it  is  regularly  reached  on  the  calendar  if  he  does  not 
wish  his  attornev  to  act  then.^ 


§  139,  By  Act  of  Attorney.  —  An  attorney  who  has  been 
employed  generally  to  conduct  legal  proceedings  enters  into  an 
entire  contract  to  conduct  them  to  their  termination ;  and  he  can- 
not abandon  the  service  '  to  his  client's  detriment ;  *  and  this  is 
true  even  though  the  attorney,  subsequently  to  his  employment, 


The  institution  of  an  action  to  en- 
join an  attorney  from  collecting  a 
judgment,  is  sufficient  notice  of  his 
discharge.  O'Neal  r.  Spalding,  66  S. 
W.  ]],  23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1729. 

3  White  V.  Johnson,  67  Me.  290; 
Acock  t'.  McBroom,  38  Mo.  342; 
Schelly  v.  Zink,  13  Hun  (N.  Y.)  538; 
Butcher  v.  Quinn,  86  App.  Div.  391, 
83  N.  Y.  S.  700. 

4  Wells  r.  Hatch,  43  N.  H.  246 ;  Beli- 
veau  V.  Amoskeag  Mfg.  Co.,  68  X.  H. 
225,  40  Atl.  734,  73  Am.  St.  Rep.  577, 
44  L.R.A.  167;  Butcher  t;.  Quinn.  86 
App.  Div.  391,  83  N.  Y.  S.  700;  Belle 
City  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Kemp,  27  Wash.  Ill, 
67  Pac.  580. 

An  attorney  of  record  in  a  cause 
is  entitled  to  receive  payment  of  a 
judgment  recovered  therein,  and  those 
dealing  with  such  attornej'  will  not  be 
affected  by  a  revocation  of  his  au- 
thority if  they  have  had  no  notice  of 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 16. 


that  fact.    Acock  r.  McBrooni.  38  Mo. 
342. 

5  Steinson  r.  Board  of  Education, 
76  App.  Div.  612,  78  N.  Y.  S.  703. 

6  The  Zilpha,  40  Ct.  CI.  200. 

7  T'nitcd  States. — U.  S.  v.  Curry,  6 
How.  106,  12  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)  363. 

Massachusetts. — PoAvers  r.  Mann- 
ing, 154  Mass.  370,  28  X.  E.  290,  13 
L.R.A.  258. 

Missouri. — Young  v.  Lanznar,  133 
Mo.  App.  130,  112  S.  W.  17. 

Nero  York. — Tenney  r.  Berger.  93 
N.  Y.  524,  45  Am.  Rep.  263. 

Tennessee. — Love  v.  Hall.  3  Yorg. 
408. 

8  Heller  v.  Waller,  2  Kulp  (Pa.) 
334;  Love  v.  Hall,  3  Yerg.  (Tenn.) 
408.  See  also  Young  v.  Lanznar,  133 
Mo.  App.  130,  112  S.  W.  17:  PicUard 
V.  Pickard,  83  Hun  338,  31  X.  Y.  S. 
987. 


242 


EELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§    139 


was  elected  an  officer  of  a  municipal  corporation  against  which 
his  client's  action  was  pending.^  Where  an  attorney  has  ajjpeared 
in  an  action  his  relation  to  his  client  can  only  be  terminated  by 
his  withdrawal  of  record  ^°  by  leave  of  conrt.'^^  Usually  he  has 
a  right  to  withdraw  with  his  client's  consent;  ^^  but  without  such 
consent,  withdrawal  will  only  be  permitted  for  justifiable  cause.^^ 
The  withdrawal  of  an  attorney's  appearance  is  justified  only  when 
the  cause  therefor  is  substantial/*  such  as  the  client's  refusal  or 
neglect  to  pay  the  fees  agreed  upon,^*  or  to  make  reasonable  ad- 


s' McKeigue  v.  Janesvillo.  08  Wis.  50, 
31    X.  W.  298. 

10  Rousli  r.  Fort,  3  Mont.  1  75. 

111".  S.  /•.  Curry,  6  How.  TOO,  12 
U.  S.  (L.  ed)  363;  Krieger  v.  Krieger, 
221  III.  479,  77  X.  E.  909,  reversing 
120  111.  App.  634,  and  affirming  121 
111.  App.  11  ;  Chicago  Pub.  Stock 
Exch.  v.  McCIaughry,  50  111.  App.  358; 
Hickox  V.  Eels,  86  111.  App.  216; 
Symmes  v.  INTajor,  21  Ind.  443  ;  Branch 
V.  Walker.  92  X.  C.  87. 

12Tlioinpson  r.  Dickinson,  159  ]\Iass. 
210,   34  X.  E.  262. 

The  withdrawal  of  his  appearance 
by  an  attorney  on  leave  of  court,  is 
presumed  to  have  been  authorized  by 
the  client.  Ilenck  v.  Todhunter,  7 
Har.  &  J.  (Md.)  275,  16  Am.  Dec.  300. 

i3Hawkes  r.  Cottrell,  3  H.  &  X. 
(Eng.)  243,  27  L.  J.  Exch.  369; 
Powers  r.  Planning,  154  Mass.  370, 
28  X.  E.  290,  13  L.R.A.  258;  Young  ;•. 
Lanznar,  133  Mo.  App.  130,  112  S.  W. 
17:  Tenney  v.  Hcrger,  48  Super.  Ct. 
(X.  Y.)    11. 

14  Eliot  r.  Lawton,  7  Aih'n  (Mass.) 
274,  83  Am.  Dec.  683. 

15  Vniled  S7'(f<-.s-.— Silver  Peak  Cnld 
Mill.  Co.  r.  Harris.  IK;  l-'cd.  4:!!): 
Chainiiers  /'.  CiJinorc,  19.'!  I^'cil.  (i.'!.'), 
113  C.  C.  A.  50:!. 

I  rl.rmsfiN. —  LaCotts  r.  Querternious, 
81   Ark.  376,  105  S.  W.  872. 


IlUnois. — See  Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Koerner,  3  111.  App.  248. 

loica. — Cullison  v.  Lindsay,  108  la. 
124,  78  X.  W.  847. 

Louisiana. — Cooley  r.  Doherty,  5 
La.  Ann.  1G3. 

MasftarJitiftetls. — Eliot  r.  Lawton,  7 
Allen   274.  83   Am.  Dec.   683. 

Missouri. — Bissell  v.  Zorn.  122  Mo. 
App.  688,  99  S.  W.  458;  Young  r. 
Lanznar,  133  Mo.  App.  130,  112  S.  W. 
17. 

New  York. — Gleason  v.  Clark,  9 
Cow.  57 ;  Castro  r.  Bennet,  2  Johns. 
296;  Pickard  v.  Pickard.  83  Hun  338, 
31  X.  Y.  S.  987;  Clark  r.  Xichols,  127 
App.  Div.  219,  111  N.  Y.  S.  66;  Her- 
bert V.  Lawrence,  21  Civ.  Pro.  336,  18 
X.  Y.  S.  95;  Avery  v.  -Jacob.  59  Super. 
Ct.  585  mem.,  15  X.  Y.  S.  564. 

Texas. — Thomas  v.  ^Morrison,  46  S. 
W.  46. 

In  Bissell  r.  Zorn,  122  :\Io.  App. 
()SS,  99  S.  W.  458.  it  was  lield  that  the 
plaintifT  liad  a  I'iglit  to  quit  tin-  cerv- 
ices of  the  defendant,  as  attorney  in 
a  criminal  prosecution,  when  the  de- 
fendant attempted  to  modify  tlieir 
contract  so  as  to  limit  the  ])laintiff  to 
a  fee,  contingent  upon  tlie  defeiulant's 
being  Hiinlly  discliarged.  See  also 
Cnllisoii  r.  Lindsay.  108  Ta.  124,  78 
X.  W.  847. 

An  attorney  is  not  JMstified  in  witii- 


§  1-1)] 


IIKLATION    or    ATTOKXEY    AND    CLIE23T. 


2i3 


vanees  for  expenses  and  to  a])plj  on  aceonnt  of  fees/^  or  attempts 
to  prevent  his  attorney  from  colleetins;-  his  fees,^'  or  where  he  learns 
that  his  client's  claim  is  fictitious,"  or  that  continuing  in  the  em- 
ployment would  oblige  him  to  represent  conflicting  interests/®  or 
where  the  client,  against  the  protest  of  his  attorney,  introduces  into 
the  proceeding,  as  counsel,  one  against  whom  the  attorney  has  ol> 
jections  both  personally  and  professionally ;  ^°  though  the  mere 
fact  of  the  client's  employing  another  attorney,  as  associate  in 
the  case,  does  not  justify  the  original  attorney  in  withdrawing^ 
where  no  reasonable  objection  can  be  made  to  such  associate.^     So, 


drawing  from  a  case  merely  because 
liis  client  refuses  to  pay  some  demand 
pertaining  to  another  proceeding. 
Cairo,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Koerner,  3  111. 
App.  248.  See  also  Halbert  v.  Gibbs, 
16  App.  Div.  120,  4  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas. 
232,  45  N.  Y.  S.  11. !. 

16  England. — Robins  r.  Goldingham. 
L.  R.  13  Eq.  440,  41  L.  .1.  Ch.  813,  25 
L.  T.  X.  S.  !)00,  20  W.  R.  277;  Hoby 
r.  Built,  3  B.  &  Ad.  350,  23  E.  C.  L. 
f)l,  1  L.  J.  K.  B.  121;  Underwood  v. 
Lewis,  [1894]  2  Q.  B.  30G,  42  W.  R. 
517.  9  Rep.  440;  Wadswortli  V. 
Marshall,  2  Cromp.  &  J.  665;  Van- 
sandau  r.  Browne,  9  Bing.  402,  23 
E.  C.  L.  315,  2  Moo.  &  S.  543,  2  L.  J. 
C.  PI.  34;  Whitehead  v.  Lord,  7  Exch. 
691,  21  L.  J.  Exch.  239. 

Arlansaa. — LaCotts  v.  Querternious, 
84  Ark.  376,  105  S.  W.  872. 

Massachusetts. — Eliot  i".  Lawton,  7 
Allen  274,  83  Am.  Dec.  083;  Powers 
V.  Manning,  154  Mass.  370,  28  N.  E. 
290,    13   L.R.A.   258. 

Missouri. — Young  v.  Lanznar,  133 
Mo.  App.  130,  112  S.  W.  17. 

Xe"-  rorfc.— Gleason  v.  Clark,  9 
Cow.  57 ;  Castro  v.  Bennet,  2  Johns. 
290;  Tenney  r.  J5erger,  93  N.  Y.  530, 
45  Am.  Rep.  263;  Pickard  v.  Pickard, 
83  Hun  338,  31   N.  Y.  S.  989. 

Question    of    Sufficient    Cause    for 


■lurij. — In  Young  v.  Lanznar,  133  Mo. 
App.  130,  112  S.  W.  17,  it  was  held 
tliat  if  the  client  unreasonabh'  re- 
fused to  advance  money  for  expenses 
and  services  in  a  reasonable  amount, 
during  the  progress  of  extended  liti- 
gation, sufficient  cause  miglit  be  fur- 
nislied  thereby  to  justify  his  attorney 
in  withdrawing  from  the  cause;  and, 
in  such  circuiustances,  it  was  entirely 
proper  to  submit  the  question  of  rea- 
sonable cause  to  the  jury  under  proper 
instructions.  And  see  to  the  same 
effect  Pickard  v.  Pickard,  83  Hun  338, 
31  N.  Y.  S.  987;  Matheny  v.  Farley, 
66  W.  Va.  680,  66  S.  E.  1000. 

17  Tliomas  v.  ]Morrison,  46  S.  W.  40, 
modified  92  Tex.  329,  48  S.  W.  500. 

18  Clark  V.  Nichols,  127  App.  Div. 
219.  Ill  N.  Y.  S.  60. 

iSAsher  r.  Beckner.  41  S.  W.  35, 
19  K}'.  L.  Rep.  521;  Sweeney  r..  Kerr, 
(Ky.)  25  S.  W.  273. 

20  Tenney  v.  Berger,  48  Super.  Ct. 
11.  affirmed  93  N.  Y.  524,  45  Am.  Rep. 
203.  See  also  Montgomery  r.  ^lont- 
gomery,  2  Hawaii  677;  ^latheny  v. 
Farley,  66  W.  Va.  680,  06  S.  E.  1060. 

1  Morgan   v.  Roberts,  38  111.  65. 

Tliat  senior  counsel,  engaged  in  tlie 
trial  of  a  cause,  designates  a  reputal)le 
attorney,  who  has  l)eon  engaged  in 
former   trials   of   the   same    cause,    to 


244 


EELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   140 


also,  any  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  client,  during-  the  progress  of 
the  litigation,  which  would  tend  to  degrade  or  humiliate  the  at- 
torney would  furnish  suthcient  cause  for  his  withdrawal  from  the 
case.^  That  defendant  failed  on  several  occasions  to  appear  when 
her  case  was  called  and  did  not  furnish  her  counsel  with  a  list 
of  witnesses,  and  failed  to  appear  for  trial,  did  not  warrant  her 
counsel  in  abandoning  her  defense  without  having  previously 
given  her  timely  notice  of  his  intention  so  to  do.^  Xotice  of  an 
attorney's  withdrawal  from  the  cause  should  be  given  to  the  client 
and  also  to  the  opposite  party  or  his  counsel.* 

§   140.  By  Death  of  Client. — The  death  of  the  client  termi- 
nates the  relation  of  attorney  and  client,^  and,  of  course,  puts  an 


argue  a  motion  for  a  new  trial,  does 
not  warrant  the  junior  counsel  in 
abandoning  tlie  case  contrary  to  his 
agreement  to  prosecute  it  to  final  de- 
termination. White  V.  Wriglit,  10 
Mo.  App.  551. 

2Genrow  v.  Flynn,  1G6  Mich.  564, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912D  63S,  131  X.  W.  1J15, 
.35  L.R.A.(N.S.)  9G0;  Tenney  v. 
Berger,  93  X.  Y.  524,  45  Am.  Eep. 
263;  Matlieny  r.  Farley,  66  W.  Va. 
680,  66  S.  E.  1060.  See  also  Dempsey 
V.  Dorrance,  151  Mo.  i\pp.  429,  132 
S.  W.  33. 

I'pon  learning  tliat  a  case  is  de- 
pendent on  false  testimony,  an  attor- 
ney is  warranted  in  ignoring  an  agree- 
ment to  carry  on  the  litigation.  Rush 
V.  Cavenaugh,  2  Pa.  St.  187;  Canii)- 
bell  r.  Goodman.  23  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  609. 

8  Prown  /•.  Giccii.    (I.a.)   (i2  So.  15-1. 

4  L'nderwond  r.  Lewis,  |  1S94 ]  2  Q.  I?. 
(Kng.)  3011.  lit  I..  .(.  (,».  r..  til).  70  L.  T. 
N.  S.  833,  A.>  W.  K.  .'>I7.  9  Rep.  440; 
Xicholls  r.  W  ilv.ii,  1  1  .M.  &  \V.  (Kng.) 
106,  12  I..  .J.  Kxcli.  2(ii;,  2  Dowl.  X.  S. 
1031;  X'aiisaiuhni  r.  I'.rownc,  9  l?ing. 
402.  2.'!  I''..  <■.  I..  3  15.  2  Moo.  &  S.  5  4  3, 
2  L.  -I.  C.  Pi.  :',\:   Wliitchcad   r.  Lord, 


7  Exch.  (Eng.)  691,  21  L.  J.  Exch. 
239  :  Boyd  r.  Stone,  5  Wis.  240. 

5  Enrihind. — Whiteliead  r.  Lord,  7 
Excli.  691  ;  Palmer  v.  Reiffenstein,  1 
M.  &  G.  94,  39  E.  C.  L.  370. 

I'nitcd  i<tates. — Hunt  r.  Rous- 
manier,  8  Wheat.  174,  5  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
589;  Butler  r.  Goreley,  146  U.  S.  303, 
13  S.  Ct.  84,  36  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  981; 
Eagleton  ^Ifg.  Co.  v.  West,  etc.,  Mfg. 
Co.,  2  Fed.  774;  Farrand  v.  Land,  etc.. 
Imp.  Co.,  86  Fed.  393,  58  U.  S.  App. 
559,  30  C.  C.  A.   128. 

California. — Judson  r.  Love,  35  Cal. 
463;  Moyle  f.  Landers,  78  Cal.  99,  20 
Pac.  241,  12  Am.  St.  Rep.  22;  Pedlar 
r.  Stroud,  116  Cal,  461,  48  Pac.  371; 
In  re  Turner,  139  Cal,  85,  72  Pac,  718; 
D.'iter  r.  Kiser,  158  Cal.  259,  110  Pac. 
921. 

///(■/(o/.s.— Risley  r.  Fellows,  10  liL 
531  :  Turnan  v.  Temke,  84  111.  286. 

Indiana. — Harness  r.  State,  57  Ind. 
1;  Clegg  /■.  naund)erger,  110  Ind.  53(5, 
9  X.  E,  700. 

h'rnfiiH- 11.— Chirk  r.  Parisii.  1  Bihh 
517;  (  aiiiplii'll  v.  Kiiicaid,  3  T.  B. 
-Mon.  69. 


§  140] 


RELATION    OF    ATTOKNEY    AXD    CLIENT. 


24:5 


end  to  the  attorney's  authority.^  The  attorney  may,  however,  be 
retained  by  the  heirs,  or  other  representatives  of  his  client,  to 
continue  the  business  for  which  he  was  originally  employed.'  in 
the  absence  of  such  subsequent  retainer,  however,  an  attorney  can- 
not continue  a  case  after  his  client's  death,'  nor  can  he  appear  and 


Maryland. — In  re  Yoniig,  3  ~Sl(i.  Cli. 
461. 

Massachusetts. — Gleason  r.  Dodd,  4 
Met.  333;  Kelley  v.  Riley,  10(5  Mass. 
339,  8  Am.  Rep.  336. 

Michigan. — Courser  r.  Jackson,  159 
Mich.  119,  123  N.  W.  604,  16  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  845. 

Missouri. — Prior  r.  Kiso.  90  ^lo. 
303,  9  S.  W.  898;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Woodson,  no  :Mo.  App.  208,  85  S. 
W.  105;  State  r.  Riley,  219  Mo.  667, 
118  S.  W.  647.  See  also  Price  v. 
Haeberle,    25    Mo.   App.   201. 

Montana. — State  v.  District  Court, 
42  Mont.  496,  Ann.  Cas.  1912B  246, 
113  Pac.  472. 

Neiraskn. — Corson  r.  Lewis,  77 
Neb.  446,  109  N.  W.  735. 

New  Jersey. — Wood  r.  Hopkins,  3 
N.  J.  L.  689. 

Xeio  York. — Austin  r.  Monroe,  4 
Lans.  67;  Lapaugh  r.  Wilson.  43  Hun 
6] 9,  6  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  624;  VanCampen 
V.  Bruns,  54  App.  Div.  86,  66  N.  Y.  S. 
344;  Stirnermaun  V.  Cowing,  7  Johns. 
Ch.  275;  Balbi  v.  Duvet,  3  Edw.  4] 8; 
Avery  r.  Jacob,  59  Super.  Ct.  585 
mem.,  15  N.  Y.  S.  564;  Clark  V.  Rich- 
ards, 3  E.  D.  Smith  89;  Putnam  r. 
VanBuren,  7  How.  Pr.  31 ;  Adams  v. 
Nellis,  59  How.  Pr.  385;  Beach  r. 
Gregory,  2  Abb.  Pr.  206,  3  Abb.  Pr. 
78 ;  Amore  v.  LaMothe,  5  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
146;  In  re  Bobbins,  61  Misc.  1]4,  112 
N.  Y.  S.  1032. 

Ohio. — Cisna  r.  Beach,  15  Ohio  300, 
45  Am.  Dec.  576;  Villliauer  c.  Toledo, 
5  Ohio  Dec.  8,  32  Cine.  L.  Bui.  154. 


PrnnsyJvtr.iid. — Peries  r.  Aycinena. 
3  W.  &  S.  64. 

1'c.ras. — Gray  v.  Cooper,  23  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  3,  56  S.  W.  105;  Stark  r. 
Hart,  22  Tex.  Civ.  App.  544,  54  S.  W. 
378. 

Vermotit. — \^'ells  r.  Foss,  81  Vt.  15. 
69  Atl.  155. 

West  Mnjinid. — Teter  v.  Irwin,  69 
W.  Va.  200,  Ann.  Cas.  1913A  707,  71 
S.  E.  115. 

6  Butler  r.  Goreley,  146  U.  S.  303, 
13  S.  Ct.  84,  36  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  981; 
:\Iaury  r.  Fitzwater,  88  Fed.  768:  Mc- 
Cormick  r.  Shaughnessy,  19  Idaho 
465,  114  Pac.  22,  34  L.R.A.(X.S.) 
1188. 

7Wliartenby  r.  Reay,  92  Cal.  74,  28 
Pac.  56 ;  Succession  of  Liles,  24  La. 
Ann.  490. 

Presumption  of  Authority  to  Act  for 
Representatives. — Wliere  tlie  peti- 
tioner in  a  suit  for  partition  died,  and 
tlie  action  was  revived  in  the  name  of 
liis  widow  and  son,  as  his  devisee  and 
heir,  tlie  authority  of  the  counsel  em- 
ployed by  tlie  deceased  to  act  for 
plaintifl's,  in  the  suit  as  revived,  must 
be  presumed  to  continue  unless  the 
contrary  is  shown.  Wilson  v.  Smitli, 
22  Grat.   (Va.)    493. 

8  Bourguinon  r.  Boudousquie,  3  La. 
526. 

A  contract  between  attorney  and 
client  for  compensation  for  the  attor- 
ney's services,  to  be  rendered  in  an  ac- 
tion against  tlie  client,  is  abandoned 
by  the  attorney  where,  after  the 
client's   death,   he  neglects  to    inform 


246 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   140 


suggest  the  death  of  his  client,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  an 
order  of  revivor.^  So,  an  attorney  cannot  collect  money  due  his 
client/"  issue  execution, ^^  or  enter  satisfaction,^^  or  a  release  of 
record, ^^  or  receive  money  collected  by  the  sheriif  on  an  execution 
in  favor  of  his  client,'^*  or  use  money  collected  for  his  client  to 
redeem  land  from  a  tax  sale,  in  order  to  protect  such  client's  inter- 
est therein,^^  or  apply  for  leave  to  perfect  evidence  of  service,^^  or 
remit  part  of  a  verdict.^'^  So,  the  client's  death  revokes  the  attor- 
ney's authority  as  to  the  giving  ^*  or  receiving  of  notice.^^  N^or 
can  the  attornej-  admit  a  mistake  in  the  amount  of  a  judgment,  or 
consent  to  its  correction, ^°  or  tile  pleadings,^  or  take  an  appeal,^  or 


tlie  executor  of  tlie  existence  of  the 
contract,  and  permits  liim  to  retain 
other  counsel  to  carry  on  the  litiga- 
tion. Bolte  r.  Fiditner.  08  Hun  147, 
22  N.  Y.  S.  72.5. 

9  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Woodson, 
110  Mo.  App.  208,  85  S.  W.  105. 

A  revivor  of  a  pending  suit  in  the 
name  of  liis  client's  personal  repre- 
sentatives, without  being  requested  by 
them,  is  witliout  authority,  and  no  ac- 
tion can  be  maintained  for  compensa- 
tion for  services  rendered  after  the 
client's  deatii :  to  recover  for  sucli 
.services,  there  must  be  specific  proof 
of  employment  by  the  lieirs  or  the 
personal  representatives.  (  ampbell  /•. 
Kincaid,  3  T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  G8; 
Xewbaker  r.  Alricks.  5  \\'atts  (Pa.) 
183. 

lOTurnan  r.  Temke.  S4  11!.  2Sti: 
l.ociienmeyer  r.  Fogarty,  112  111.  572: 
Ch'gg  r.  l!.niiiib(TLMT,  I  Id  iiiil.  5:;(1.  !) 
X.  K.  700;  Ciiirk  r.  Itichards.  3  10.  1). 
Smith  (X.  ^'.1  SO;  (iruy  r.  Cooper.  23 
'l<\.  (  iv.  A|.|).  3.  5(1  S.  \V.  105. 

In  IjOiiisiiiiiii  it  has  been  lichl  tliat. 
tlie  death  of  a  client  does  not  ilis- 
solve  the  criiitraet  of  an  attorney  to 
collect  a  jiidgiiK'nt.  Succession  of 
I>abaiive,  31  La.  Ann.  1  187.      ■ 

n  Smith   r.  Alexamhr,  80  Ala.  251. 


ISTurnan    v.    Temke,    84    111.    28G; 
Harness  r.  State,  57  Ind.  1. 
13  Harness  r.  State,  57  Ind.  1. 
14Risley  r.  Fellows,  10  III.  531. 

15  Farrand  r.  Land,  etc..  Imp.  Co., 
86  Fed.  393.  58  U.  S.  App.  559,  30  C. 
C.   A.  128. 

16  Lapaugh  r.  Wilson,  43  Hun  619, 
6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  624. 

17  Rundles  r.  Jones.  3  Ind.  35. 
ISDeiter  r.  Kiser,  158  Cal.  259,  110 

Pac.  921. 

19  Pedlar  r.  Stroud,  116  Cal.  461,  48 
Pac.  371  ;  In  re  Turner.  139  Cal.  85,  72 
Pac.  718;  In  re  Beckwith,  90  N.  Y. 
067:  Plolt  V.  Idlenian,  34  Ore.  114.  54 
Pac.  279. 

20  Cook  r.  Parham.  03  Ala.  450. 
ICiles  V.  Eaton,  54  .Me.  ISO. 
2Stitii     V.     Winbush.     3     La.     442; 

Coflin  r.  Edgington,  2  Idaho  627,  23 
Pac.  80;  McCormick  r.  Shauglmessy, 
l!t  Idaho  4{)5,  114  Pac.  22.  34  L.R.A. 
IX.S.)    1188. 

In  California  a  statute  |)rovid(s 
that  on  the  death  of  any  person  iiav- 
iiig  a  right  of  appeal,  bis  attorney  of 
record  may  apjieal  at  any  time  befoie 
the  appointment  of  an  administrator 
or  rxcciitor,  anil  it  lia^  lircn  held  that 
such  right  is  limited  to  the  period 
prior  to  the  appointment  of  a  personal 


§     140]  RELATION    OF    ATTOIi^'EY    A^■L)    CLIENT.  247 

institute  supplementary  proceedings,^  in  the  name  of  his  client. 
But  an  attorney  may  have  an  execution  for  costs  and  disburse- 
ments belonging  to  him,  notwithstanding  the  death  of  his  client.'* 
And  after  services  have  been  rendered  by  an  attorney,  and  a  lien 
for  the  payment  thereof  acquired,  the  death  of  liis  client  cannot, 
of  course,  affect  his  right  to  such  lien,  or  to  coniijensation  for  his 
services.*  So  also  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  contract  j)ro- 
vides  that  the  attorney  shall  prosecute  a  cause  to  judgment,  it  will 
not  be  dissolved  by  the  client's  death. ^  Thus  the  death  of  a  |)er- 
son  who  employed  an  attorney  to  defend  another,  does  not  termi- 
nate the  employment  where  the  performance  of  the  contract  by  the 
attorney  was  ])ossible  Avithout  any  direction  or  intervention  on 
the  part  of  the  employer,  and  it  was  the  intention  of  the  parties 
that  the  employment  should  continue  until  the  object  thereof  was 
accomplished,'  The  same  is  true  where  the  attorney's  power  is 
coupled  with  an  interest.*  As  a  matter  of  practice,  at  connnon 
law,  a  judgment  will  be  entered  on  the  verdict  on  motion,  as  of  a 
preceding  day  or  term  of  the  court,  whenever  an  action,  continued 
or  postponed  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  disposition  thereof 
which  may  relieve  a  dissatisfied  party  from  a  verdict,  would  other- 
wise fail  by  the  death  of  a  party  to  it.^  So  if  the  death  occur  after 
verdict,  delay  during  the  time  taken  for  the  argument  of  law 
questions  upon  which  the  validity  of  it  depends,  or  for  advisement 
thereon,  will  not  be  suffered  to  deprive  one  of  the  benefits  to  which 
he  appears  to  have  been  justly  entitled  under  it;  and  counsel  will 
be  heard.'" 

representative.     Deiter   V.   Kiser,    158  7  Harrett   r.  Towne,  190  ?ilas.s.  487, 

Cal.  259,  110  Pac.  921.  82  N.  E.  098.  13  L.R.A.(X.S.)    04.3. 

3  Ainore  r.  La^Iothe.  5  Abb.  X.  Cas.  8  .Joffries  r.  New  York  Miit.  L.  Ins. 

(N.  Y.)    140.  Co.,  no  U.  S.  305,  4  S.  Ct.  8,  28  U.  S. 

*  Lacliennieyer    r.   Laclienmeyer,    65  (L.  ed.)    150. 

How.  Pr.    (X.   Y.)    422.  9  Kelley   v.  Riley.   100  Mass.  339.  8 

5  Wylie  r.  Coxe,  15  How.  416,  14  U.  Am.  Rep.  330. 

S.  (L.  ed.)  753.    And  see  infra,  §  606.  10  Kelley  r.  Riley,  106  INIass.  339,  8 

6  Barrett  r.  Towne,  196  Mass.  487,       Am.  Rep.  336. 
82  N.  E.   698,   13   L.R.A.(X.S.)    043; 

Price  L-.  Haeberle,  25  Mo.  App.  201. 


248  KELATIOX    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§§     141,     142 

§  141.  By  Death  of  Attorney. —  The  death  of  an  attorney 
M'ho  has  been  retained  to  conduct  litigation  terminates  the  relation 
of  attorney  and  client;"  and  also  terminates  the  authority  of  a 
substitute  appointed  by  the  original  attorney ;  "  and  the  represen- 
tatives of  such  attorney  cannot  employ  other  counsel  to  perform 
the  services  for  which  the  original  counsel  was  retained.^^  So 
where  a  contract  is  made  with  an  attorney,  and  it  is  specially  con- 
tracted or  understood  that  he  alone  is  to  do  the  work,  or  to  ren- 
der the  services,  or  that  his  individual  skill  is  exclusively  depend- 
ed upon,  the  death  of  such  attorney  terminates  the  contract,  even 
though  he  was,  when  retained,  a  member  of  a  firm  of  attorneys.^* 
Where  a  client  enters  into  a  contract  with  a  firm  of  attorneys  for 
certain  legal  services,  and  contracts  for  the  services  of  the  firm,  and 
one  of  the  firm  dies  before  the  contract  is  finally  completed,  the 
client  has  the  option  of  discharging  the  survivors,  settling  for  serv- 
ices previously  reudored,  and  employing  other  counsel  to  conclude 
his  pending  litigation ;  or  he  may  insist  on  the  performance  of  the 
contract  by  the  survivors. ^^ 

§  142.  By  Accomplishment  of  Purpose. —  The  relation  of 
attorney  and  client  is  terminated  by  the  accomplishment  of  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  created ;  ^®  and  no  act  of  the  attorney  can 
bind  his  client  thereafter.^'^     What  will,  or  will  not,  be  deemed  to 

11  Troy  V.  Hall,  357  Ala.  592,  47  So.  Rep.    458,    66   L.R.A.    821.      See   also 

10.35;  Love  v.  Peel,  79  Ark.  366,  95  S.  McCoon  v.  Galbraith,  29  Pa.  St.  293. 

W.  998:  Clifton  V.  Clark,  83  Miss.  446.  16  Wassoll  r.  Reardon,  11  Ark.  705, 

1   Ann.  Cas.  396,  36  So.  251,  102  Am.  44  j^,„    u^p    245;  Adams  v.  Ft.  Plain 

St.  Rep.  458,  66  L.R.A.  821.  j^,^,,,^    23  How.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    45.     See 

IZPerics    V.    AycineiKi,    :;    W.    &    S.  .^j^,,  ^y;,,;,,    ,.    ,5,„.,iette,  172  HI.  117, 

<^^-)   ^'*-  49  X.  1:.  I  (!()(»:   Atlantic  Nat.  Bank  (-. 

13  lx)ve  /•.  Peel.  79  Ark.  :;(ili.  95  S.  W 


i'crc^roy-.Iciddns  Co.,  147  N.  C.  293,  61 
S.  !•'..  tiS ;  .loiies  r.  Williamson,  5 
Coldw.    (Tcnn.)    371. 


99S. 

HTroy  r.  Ihill.  157  Ala.  592,  47  So. 
Hi:;.-.:  (  lit'ton  /.  (lark.  83  Miss.  446, 
1    Ann.  (as.  396,  36  So.  251,    102  Am.  ^^  l''r<.wl..y    r.    SMprnor    Court,    158 

St.    i:..p.  4.5S,  66   I..R.A.  S21.  <'"••    --"•     1"'    l^=^''-    '^^^^    ^^'^^^'^''    '• 

ISMKIill    r.    MrCili.   2    Mrt.    (Ky.)  Catkins,  43  111.  24;  Test  v.  Larsh,  98 

258;  Clifton  '•.  (  lark,  s:!  .Mi^>.    116,    1  lii<1.301;  Parker  r.  Downinsr,  13  IMass. 

Ann.  Cas.  3!tt!,  36  So.  251,  l(i2  .\in.  St.  4(15;    Lamb  r.  Wilsa-i,  3  Neb.    (unolli- 


§   142] 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


249 


be  an  accomplisliDient  of  the  purpose  for  which  an  attorney  has 
been  emploj'ed  must  of  necessity  depend  large!}'  on  the  facts  pre- 
sented by  each  case.^'  Thus  the  functions  of  an  attorney  for  ab- 
sent heirs  cease  when  the  heirs  present  themselves,  and  are  recog- 
nized and  put  into  possession  by  order  of  the  court. ^^  So  where 
an  attorney  is  employed  to  contest  a  will,  his  employment  ceases 
on  the  withdrawal  of  the  objections  with  his  client's  consent,  and 
the  entry  of  a  decree  admitting  the  will  to  probate.^"  The  relation 
is  also  terminated  where  the  matter  in  dispute  has  been  settled.^ 
So  if  a  judgment  is  assigned  the  authority  of  the  attorney  termi- 
nates with  the  assignment.^  When  counsel  has  been  retained  to 
conduct  litigation,  his  authority  to  represent  his  client  therein 
ceases  with  the  termination  of  such  litigation.^     The  question  of 


oial)  Rep.  505,  97  N.  W.  325,  i-evers- 
ing  92  N.  W.  ]67;  Bergholtz  v.  Ithaca 
St.  R.  Co.,  27  Misc.  176,  29  Civ.  Pro. 
291,  58  N.  Y.  S.  388. 

18  Thus  the  obtaining  of  a  decree  of 
divorce  does  not  terminate  tlie  author- 
ity of  tlie  complainant's  solicitor, 
where  he  continues  to  look  after  the 
settlement  of  property  matters  be- 
tween the  parties.  Willin  v.  Burdette, 
172  111.  317,  49  N.  E.  1000. 

19  Succession  of  McArthur,  21  La. 
Ann.  432. 

20  Tenney  c.  Berger,  48  Super.  Ct. 
(N.  Y.)   11. 

1  United  States. — Swanson  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  Fed.  638. 

Nehraslca. — Lavender  v.  Atkins,  20 
Neb.  206,  29  N.  W.  467. 

iVeic  York. — Roberts  v.  Doty,  31 
Ilun  128;  McDowell  r.  Second  Ave.  R. 
Co.,  4  Bosw.  670.  See  also  McKenzie 
r.  Rhodes,  13  Abb.  Pr.  337,  21  How. 
Pr.  467. 

South  Dakota. — Grantz  r.  Dead- 
wood  Terra  Min.  Co.,  17  S.  D.  61,  95 
N.  W.  277. 

Tennessee.— ,lo\u\son  v.  Story,  1  Lea 
11-1;    Yoakley  V.  Hawley,  5  Lea   673; 


Dooley  v.  Dooley,  9  Lea  306 ;  Stoi)liens 
V.  Nashville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  10  Lea  448; 
Sharpe  v.  Allen,  11  Lea  518. 

2  Trumbull  v.  Nicholson,  27  111.  140; 
Caldwell  c.  Bigger,  76  Kan.  49,  90  Pac. 
1095;  Robinson  r.  Brennan.  90  N.  Y. 
208;  Treasurers  v.  ^McDowell,  1  Hill 
L.  (S.  C.)  185,  26  Am.  Dec.  KUi: 
Mayer  r.  Blease,  4  S.  C.  10:  :Mordei'ai 
V.  Charleston  County,  8  S.  C.  l(l(t. 

It  seems  to  be  an  establislied  rule 
of  the  law  relating  to  attorney 
and  client  that,  when  the  interest 
of  the  client  in,  and  his  power 
over,  the  subject-matter  to  whlcli  the 
agency  relates  are  extinguished,  it  dis- 
solves the  relation  between  the  parties. 
Foster  v.  Bookwalter,  152  N.  Y.  166, 
46  N.  E.  299.  affirming  78  Hun  352,  29 
N.  Y.  S.  116. 

^United  States. — Planning  /■.  Hay- 
den,  5  Sawy.  360.  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9.043. 

Colorado. — Tobler  r.  Ncnitt,  4,3 
Colo.  231,  16  Ann.  Cas.  925.  100  Pac. 
416,  132  Am.  St.  Rep.  142,  23  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)   702. 

Georgia. — Nichols  i.  Dennis,  R.  M. 
Charlt.   ISS. 


250 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§  142 


what  amounts  to  a  termination,  however,  remains ;  and  as  to  that 
the  authorities  differ.  The  general  rule  nndonhtedlv  is  that,  in 
the  absence  of  an  agreement  to  the  contrary,  litigation  is  so  far  ter- 
minated bv  the  entry  of  a  final  judgment  therein  as  to  put  an  end 
to  the  authority  of  counsel  with  respect  thereto,*  especially  the 


Kan.'ia.t. — Smith  r.  Cunningham,  59 
Kan.  552,  53  Pac.  760. 

Maine. — Gray  r.  W'ass,  1  Me.  257. 

Xeic  Yo7-L-. — Bathgato  r.  Haskins, 
59  X.  Y.  53:5. 

Pennsi/lrania. — Campbell  v.  Canon, 
Add.  2ti7:  Martin  i.  Rex,  6  S.  &  R. 
296:  Xeff  r.  Barr,  14  S.  &  R.  166. 

Tennessee.- — Love  r.  tiall,  3  Yerg. 
408. 

Texas. — Franz  Falk  Brewing  Co.  r. 
Hirsch,  78  Tex.  192,  14  S.  W.  450. 

Vermont. — Langdon  r.  Castleton,  30 
Vt.    285. 

Wisconsiti. — Flanders  r.  Sherman, 
18  Wis.  575. 

Tohintary  Dismissal. — A  contract 
for  the  employment  of  attorneys  to 
l)ro.scciite  a  suit  is  terminated  by  the 
voluntary  dismissal  of  the  suit  by  the 
Ijlaintiff.  Tomlinson  r.  Polsley,  31  W  . 
Va.  108,  5  S.  E.  457. 

4  United  States. — Union  Bank  r. 
Geary,  5  Pet.  113,  8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  66; 
Kamm  v.  Stark,  1  Sawy.  547,  14  Fed. 
Cas.  Xo.  7.604;  ^Manning  r.  Mayden, 
5  Sawy.  360,  16  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  9,043; 
Grames  r.  Hawley,  50  Fed.  319;  Tbc 
Zilpha.  40  Ct.  CI.  200. 

AhibdiiKi. — AJbcrtson      r.     (^Dldsbw 
(i5  Am.  Dec 
-.McLain     /. 


r.     (;.)]( 
.  3.sn. 

Wat  kins 


4:; 


28  Ala.  711, 
Illinois. — 
111.   -J). 

I  llilliliiil.        Ilillr;^jlss      /•.       lu'llijiT.      7S 

Itid.  225;   Test  r.   Larsii.  !IS   Ind.  .iOi. 

loiia. — I'iniamid    ;'.    (  odpcr,    I5.3    la. 
572,    133    .\.    W  .    I0(;». 

I\cii>  iirLii. — I'licliardsoii     r.     Talbot, 


2  Bibb  382;  Hay  r.  Cole.  11  B.  Mon. 
70. 

Louisiana. — Dangerti(dd  v.  Thrus- 
ton,  8  Mart.  X.  S.  232. 

Maine. — White  r.  .Johnson,  07  Me. 
287. 

Michigan. — Ransom  v.  Sutherland, 
46  Mich.  489,  9  N.  W.  530;  Clark  r. 
McGregor,  55  Mich.  412,  21  X.  W. 
S66. 

Minnesota. — Hinkley  v.  St.  An- 
thony Falls  Water  Power  Co.,  9  Minn. 
55;  Bertliold  v.  Fox,  21  Minn.  51;  In 
re  Grundysen,  53  Minn.  346,  55  X.  W . 
557. 

Mississippi. — Dennis  r.  Jones.  31 
Miss.  606. 

Nebraska. — Lamb  /•.  Wilson,  3  Xeb. 
(nnolTicial)  Rep.  505,  97  X.  W.  325, 
rehearing  denied,  70  Xeb.  729,  98  X. 
W.  37. 

Xcn-    Yoik. — Walradt    r.    ]\laynard. 

3  Barb.  587;  Jackson  r.  Bartlett.  8 
Johns.  361;  Benedict  r.  Smith,  10 
Paige  126;  Adams  r.  Ft.  Plain  Bank. 
23  How.  Pr.  45;  Cruikshank  r.  Good- 
win, 66  Hun  626  mem.,  20  X.  Y.  S. 
757;  Davis  r.  Solomon,  25  Misc.  695, 
56  X.  Y.  S.  80 ;  Homans  r.  Tyng,  'M 
App.  Div.  3S3.  67  X.  Y.  S.  792;  Conk- 
liii  r.  Cc.idJin,  113  App.  Div.  743,  99 
X.    V.  S.  310. 

Xorth  Ca?'o/i'«ff.— Xewkirk  r.  Stev- 
.•ns,  152  X.  C.  498,  07  S.  E.   1013. 

South  ('(trolina. — Public  .Vccouiits 
(iim'i-  r.  JNisc,  1  Dcsaiis.  tlii:  Treas- 
urers r.  Mci)ovv(dl,  1  Hill  L.  184.  26 
Am.   Dec.    166;    Mavir   r.    Blease,   4   S. 


§   142] 


EELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


251 


counsel  of  the  defeated  party, ^  even  though  such  judgincnt  is  void.® 
This  rule  has  also  been  applied  to  judoinents  of  dismissal  '  and 
nonsuit.*  There  are,  however,  many  exceptions  to  this  rule,  and 
in  the  actual  practice  of  the  law  it  is  at  least  doubtful  whether  it 
is  not  more  honored  in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance.^  Among 
the  acknowledged  exceptions  to  it  are  the  authority  of  the  attor- 
ney for  the  par1%-  who  prevails  in  the  judgment  to  collect  it,^°  his 


C.  ]0;  Mordecai  r.  Charleston  Coun- 
ty, 8  S.  C.  100. 

Tennessee.— Dooley  r.  Doolcy,  9 
Lea   30G. 

STobler  v.  Nevitt,  45  Colo.  231,  16 
Ann.  Cas.  925,  100  Pac.  416,  132  Am. 
St.  Rep.  142,  23  L.R.A.(N.S.)  702; 
De  Vail  V.  De  Vail,  57  Ore.  128,  109 
Pac.   755,  110  Pac.  705. 

6  Ward  r.  Sands,  10  Abb.  N.  Cas. 
(X.  Y.)    60. 

7  Wawrzyniakowski  r.  Hoffman  & 
Billings  Mfg.  Co.,  137  Wis.  629,  119 
X.  W.  350. 

Where  the  judgment  of  dismissal 
was  rendered  at  a  prior  term,  defend- 
ant's attorney  had  no  authority,  at 
a  subsequent  term,  to  represent  his 
client,  so  as  to  bind  him,  by  appear- 
ing and  objecting  to  an  order  vacat- 
ing the  judgment  of  dismissal;  notice 
to  him  of  the  vacation  proceedings 
not  being  notice  to  the  clients.  Owen 
/•.  Smith,   (la.)    136  X.  W.  119. 

8  Hoffman  v.  Cage,  31  Tex.  595. 

9  Brown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723,  67 
C.  C.  A.  125. 

At  common  law  the  general  rult- 
was  that  the  authority  of  an  attorney 
to  represent  his  client  in  an  action 
ceases  upon  its  final  determination 
and  tlie  entry  of  judgment.  Especial- 
ly was  til  is  true  as  to  the  defendant's 
attorney,  or,  more  accurately  speak- 
ing, the  attorney  for  the  defeated 
party.     The  attorney  for  the  prevail- 


ing party  was  empowered,  under  his 
employment  as  attorney,  to  enforce 
collection  of  that  judgment  by  suing 
out  a  writ  of  execution.  A  distinc- 
tion is  also  made  by  some  of  the  au- 
thorities between  the  power  of  an  at- 
torney who  is  retained  to  try  a  liti- 
gated issue  and  one  employed  to  col- 
lect a  debt.  In  the  former  case  his 
authority  is  usually  regarded  as  end- 
ing with  the  trial  of  the  case.  In  the 
latter  he  may,  it  seems,  appeal  from 
the  judgment,  if  it  is  against  his 
client,  or  sue  out  a  writ  of  error  to 
reverse  it  witliout  a  new  retainer. 
Tobler  v.  Xevitt,  45  Colo.  231,  16 
Ann.  Cas.  925,  100  Pac.  416,  132  Am. 
St.    Rep.    142,    23    L.R.A.(X.S.)     702. 

10  United  States. — Union  Bank  v. 
Geary,  5  Pet.  113,  8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
65;  Brown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723, 
67  C.  C.  A.  125. 

Alabama. — See  Boren  v.  McGehee, 
6  Port.  432,  31  Am.  Dec.  695. 

Arkansas. — ililler  r.  Scott,  21  Ark. 
396;  Conway  County  r.  Little  Rock 
&  F.  S.  R.  Co.,  39  Ark.  50;  Williams 
r.  State,  65  Ark.  159,  46  S.  W.   186. 

Connecticut. — Brackett  r.  Xorton, 
4  Conn.  517,  10  Am.  Dec.  179. 

Maine. — Gray  /".  Wass,  1  Me.  257; 
White  r.  Jolinson,  67  Me.  287. 

Massachusetts. — Langdon  r.  Pot- 
ter. 13  Mass.  319;  Pratt  v.  Putnam, 
13  Mass.  363. 


252 


KELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   142 


authority  to  receipt  for  its  proceeds  and  to  discharge  it,^^  his  au- 
thority to  admit  service  of  a  citation  issued  upon  a  writ  of  error 
or  appeal  to  review  it,^^  his  authority  to  oppose  any  steps  that  may 
be  taken  within  a  reasonable  time  by  the  defeated  party  to  re- 
verse it,^^  and  the  authorit}^  to  stipulate  with  opposing  counsel, 
after  the  rendition  of  judgment  in  favor  of  his  client,  that  the 


Michigan. —  Foster  r.  Wiloy,  27 
:Mich.  245,  15  Am.  Pxep.  185. 

lS!ew  York. — Benedict  v.  Smith,  20 
Paige  126;  Guilleaume  v.  Rowe,  94 
X.  Y.  268,  46  Am.  Rep.  141:  Mag- 
nolia Metal  Co.  v.  Sterlingworth  Rail- 
way-Supply Co.,  6  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas. 
405,  26  Misc.  63,  56  X.  Y.  S.  478, 
affirmed  37  App.  Div.  .366,  56  N.  Y. 
S.  16. 

Pennsylvania. — Silvis  r.  Ely,  3  W. 
&  S.  420;  McDonald  r.  Todd.  1  Grant 
Cas.  17. 

South  Carolina. — Public  Accounts 
Com'r  r.  Rose,  1  Desaus.  469. 

Compare  Treasurers  r.  McDowell,  1 
Hill  L.  (S.  C.)  184,  26  Am.  Dec.  167, 
wiierein  it  was  held  that,  "the  author- 
ity of  an  attorney,  when  considered 
witli  a  view  to  the  duties  he  is  re- 
(juired  to  perform,  is  confined  to  the 
conduct  and  management  of  his 
client's  case,  in  wliicli  liis  skill  and 
learning  only  are  put  in  requisition, 
and  the  rigiit  to  receive  his  client's 
money  wit!)  special  authority  is  an 
interpolation,  the  j)ulicy  of  which 
may  well  he  (|nestiniicd,  liowevcr  con- 
venient it  iiKiy  lie  ill  practice,  and 
ought  not  to  be  extended."  Quoted 
uith  iipinotial  in  Newlcirk  v.  Stevens, 
152  X.  C.  41)8,  67  S.  E.  lOl.i. 

Institution  of  Supplrmrnfarif  I'ro- 
cccdinga. — An  attoiin'v  employed  to 
<'olh'ct  a  claim  liii-,  iniHuiiity.  Iiv 
\irliie  ipf  lii^  oligiiial  ictiiiiier.  ;if|er 
he  (ilitiiilis    jll(l;jliielit,   to  illstitlltc  sup- 


plementar}'  proceedings  thereon,  and 
to  procure  the  appointment  of  a  re- 
ceiver. These  are  proceedings  in  the 
suit.     Ward  v.  Roy,  69  X.  Y.  96. 

Judgments  for  Alimony. — It  has 
been  held  that  in  actions  for  alimony 
or  for  divorce  and  alimony  the  au- 
thority of  the  plaintiff's  attorney 
terminates  with  the  entry  of  judg- 
ment. Kalmanowitz  v.  Kalmanowitz, 
108  App.  Div.  297,  95  X.  Y.  S.  627; 
Conklin  v.  Conklin,  113  App.  Div.  743, 
99  X.  Y.  S.  310. 

11  Brown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723, 
67  C.  C.  A.  125;  Wyckoff  v.  Bergen,  1 
X.  J.  L.  214;  Haines  v.  Wilson,  85 
S.  C.  338,  67  S.  E.  311;  Flanders  v. 
Sherman,  18  Wis.  575. 

An  Oregon  statute  detining  the  au- 
tliority  of  an  attorney,  recognizes  the 
common-law  authority  of  an  attorney 
to  represent  his  client  long  enougli 
after  an  entry  of  judgment  in  hi ; 
client's  favor  to  enable  him  to  super- 
vise the  collection  thereof,  liy  au- 
tliorizing  an  attorney  at  any  time 
within  three  years  after  the  entry  of 
judgment  to  acknowledge  satisfaction 
tliei'eof  on  receiving  the  sum  ad- 
judged to  be  due  his  client.  De  Vail 
/•.  He  Vail.  57  Ore.  128,  109  Pac.  755, 
110    Pac.    705. 

12  Brown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723. 
(17  ('.  ('.  A.  125. 

13  jJiown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723. 
•  17  ('.  C.  A.  125,  reversing  127  Fed. 
387. 


§    143]  liELATlOI'f    OF    ATTOK.NEY    AND    CLIENT.  253 

case  shall  abide  the  final  decision  of  another  action  which  involves 
the  same  question,  and  is  conducted  by  the  same  attorneys.^*  In 
some  jurisdictions  the  rule  that  an  attorney's  authority  terminates 
with  the  judgment  is  not  recognized. ^^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that 
the  directions  of  the  plaintiff's  attorney  to  the  sheriff,  as  to  the 
mode  and  time  of  sale  under  an  execution,  are  binding  on  the 
sheriff;  ^^  and  that  a  warranty  of  attorney  continues  to  exist  after 
judgment,  so  long  as  process  is  required  to  obtain  the  full  benefits 
thereof.^'''  And  while  the  retainer  of  an  attorney  to  prosecute  a 
suit  does  not  of  itself  constitute  a  retainer  to  take  an  appeal  or 
bring  a  writ  of  error,^^  the  relationship  of  counsel  for  an  appel- 
lant which  existed  in  the  court  below,  is  presumed  to  continue  in 
the  appellate  court  unless  the  contrary  appears.^^  So,  the  issuance 
of  a  scire  facias  is  generally  regarded  as  being  so  connected  with 
the  recovery  of  the  judgment  as  to  dispense  with  the  necessity  of 
a  new  retainer. 


20 


Substitution. 

§  143.  Right  to  Substitution.  —  A  client  undoubtedly  has  the 
right  to  change  counsel  at  any  time  with  or  without  cause;  and 
where  the  counsel  whose  dismissal  is  desired,  is  attorney  of  record 
in  pending  litigation,  the  client  is  entitled  to  have  another  attor- 
ney substituted  in  his  stead, ^  even  though  he  has  given  an  irre- 

14  Brown  v.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723,  And  see  Parks  r.  Adairsvillc  Bank, 
67   C.   C.  A.   125,  reversing  127   Fed.       (Ga.)   78  S.  E.  856. 

387.  20  Day  r.  Welles,  31  Conn.  344. 

15  Xicliols  V.  Dennis,  R.  M.  Charlt.  Compare  Ball  r.  Lively,  2  J.  J. 
(Ga.)  188;  Jordan  v.  Tarver,  92  Ga.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  182,  wherein  it  was 
379,  17  S.  E.  351;  Lynch  v.  Com.,  16  held  that  a  scire  facias  to  revive  is  a 
S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582;  new  suit,  and  that  the  attorney  who 
Flanders  v.  Sherman,  18  Wis.  575.  obtained    the   first    judgment    has    no 

16  Lynch  r.  Com.,  16  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  authority  to  prosecute  a  scire  facias 
368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582.  without  a  new  warrant  of  autliority. 

17  Nicliols  r.  Dennis,  R.  M.  Charlt.  See  also  Gonnigal  r.  Smith,  6  Johns. 
(Ga.)   188.  (N.  Y.)   106. 

18  Delaney  r.  Husband,  64  N.  J.  L.  1  United  States.— Sloo  v.  Law,  4 
275,  45  Atl.  265;  Magnolia  Metal  Co.  Blatchf.  268,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12.958; 
r.  Sterlingworth  Railway-Supply  Co.,  Dodge  r.  Schell,  20  Blatchf.  517,  12 
37  App.  Div.  366,  56  N.  Y.  S.  16.  Fed.   515,   10   Abb.   X.   Cas.    (N.   Y.) 

19  Frost    r.   Lawler,   34    Mich.    235.  465;   In  re  Paschal,  10  Wall.  483.  19 


254 


RELATION    or    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   14^. 


vocable  jjower  of   attorney   to   the  one   first   employed.'^      Xor    is 


r.  S.  (L.  ed.)  09-2:  Yates  r.  Milwau- 
kee, 10  Wall.  497,  19  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
984;  Wilkinson  r.  Tilden,  14  Fed. 
778;  Ronald  v.  Mutual  Reserve  Fund 
L.  Assoc.,  30  Fed.  228 :  In  re  Herman, 
50  Fed.  512',  Du  Bois  c.  New  York, 
134  Fed.  570,  69  C.  C.  A.  112;  Silver- 
man V.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co.,  141  Fed. 
382 ;  New  Y'ork  Phonograpli  Co.  c. 
Edison  Phonograph  Co.  150  Fed.  233, 
148  Fed.  397;  Isaacs  v.  Abraham,  0 
Rep.  737,  13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,094; 
Carver's  Case,  7  Ct.  CI.  499:  Jones's 
Motion,  15  Ct.  CI.  204. 

Arkansas. — Love  v.  Peel,  79  Ark. 
366,  95  S.  W.  998. 

California. — People  c.  Norton,  1 6 
Cal.  436;  Faulkner  v.  Hendy.  99  Cal. 
172,  33  Pac.  899;  Lee  v.  Superior 
Court,  112  Cal.  354,  44  Pac.  666; 
Woodbury  v.  Nevada  Southern  R.  Co. 
120  Cal.  367,  52  Pac.  650;  Woodbury 
V.  Nevada  Southern  R.  Co.,  121  Cal. 
165,  53  Pac.  450;  Gage  r.  Atwater, 
136  Cal.  170,  68  Pac.  581. 

District  of  Columhia. — Kappler  v. 
Sumpter,  33  App.  Cas.  404. 

Idaho. — Curtis  v.  Richards,  4  Idaho 
434.  40  Pac.  57,  95  Am.  St.  Rep.  134. 

Illinois. — Cohen  r.  Smith,  33  111. 
App.  344. 

/oit-o.— Crosby  r.  Hatcli,  135  N.  W. 
1079. 

Kentucky. — Henry  r.  \'anc(',  111 
Ky.  72,  63  S.  W.  273;  Root  r.  Mcll- 
vaine,  56  S.  W.  498,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  7. 

Michif/an.—Mrown  c.  Rrown,  How. 
N.  P.  94. 

New  Hampshire. — Weils  r.  llatcli, 
43  N.  H.  246. 

\'cii-  Jersey. — State  r.  (iulick,  17 
X.  .r.  T^.  435;  Hudson  Trust,  etc., 
IdHt.  /".  (  jnr-(  urran  Paper  Mills,  44 
Atl.  638. 


Neiv  York. — Creighton  r.  Ingersoll, 
20  Barb.  541;  Trust  r.  Repoor,  15 
How  Pr.  570;  Ulster  County  r.  Brod- 
head,  44  How.  Pr.  411;  Prentiss  r. 
Livingston,  60  How.  Pr.  380:  lluiifs 
Petition,  Tuck.  55;  M'Laren  r.  (har- 
rier, 5  Paige  530;  Hazlett  v.  Gill,  5 
Robt.  611;  Wolf  r.  Trochelman,  5 
Robt.  611;  In  re  Prospect  Ave.,  85 
Hun  257,  1  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  347,  32 
N.  Y.  S.  1013;  In  re  H.,  93  N.  Y.  381 ; 
Halbert  v.  Gibbs,  16  App.  Div.  126, 
4  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  232,  45  N.  Y.  S. 
113;  Barkley  r.  New  Y'ork  Cent.,  etc., 
R.  Co.  42  App.  Div.  597,  59  N.  Y.  S. 
742 ;  Bryant  v.  Brooklyn  Heights  R. 
Co.,  64  App.  Div.  542,  72  N.  Y.  S. 
308 ;  Anglo-Continental  Chemical 
Works  r.  Dillon,  111  App.  Div.  418, 
97  N.  Y.  S.  1081;  People  c.  Staten 
Island  Bank,  112  App.  Div.  791,  99 
N.  Y.  S.  480;  Johnson  c.  Ravitch, 
113  App.  Div.  810,  921,  99  N.  Y.  S. 
1059,  100  N.  Y.  S.  1123;  Roake  r. 
Palmer,  119  App.  Div.  64,  103  N.  Y. 
S.  862;  Jeny  r.  Merkle,  128  App.  Div. 
833,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1106;  In  re  Rieser, 
137  App.  Div.  177,  121  N.  Y.  S.  1070; 
Ogdcn  r.  Devlin.  45  Super.  Ct.  631; 
O'Sullivan  r.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co., 
39  Misc.  268,  79  N.  Y.  S.  481 ;  Lederer 
V.  Goldston,  63  Misc.  322,  117  N.  Y. 
S.   151. 

Xorth  Dakota. — Scliouweiler  v.  Al- 
len, 17  N.  D.  516,  117  N.  W.  806. 

Ohio. — Dodson  r.  Riddh-.  1  Ohio 
Dec.  (Reprint)   54,  1  \^■est.  L.  .).  393. 

Texas. — Arrington  r.  Sneed,  18 
Tex.  135. 

Washinc/ton.- — ^Schultiicis  r.  Nash, 
27  Wash.  250,  67  Pac.  707. 

8  Carver  v.  U.  S.  7  Ct.  CI.  499. 


t 


§     143]  RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  255 

such  right  to  substitution  precluded  by  the  fact  that  the  action 
has  been  settled  and  discontinued  by  the  attorney  of  record  with- 
out authority.^  It  has  been  deemed  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  those  confidential  relations  which  ought  to  prevail  between 
counsel  and  client,  that  the  client  should  have  the  right,  under  all 
reasonable  conditions,  to  select  and  change  his  attorney  at  will.* 
Every  attorney  enters  into  the  service  of  his  client  subject  to  the 
rule  that  his  client  may  so  dismiss  or  supersede  him,  and  if  he 
makes  a  contract  for  future  services  to  his  client,  it  is  necessarily 
subject  to  such  rule,  and  made  with  full  knowledge  that  he  may 
never  perform  such  service,  for  the  reason  that  his  client  may  not 
keep  him,  and,  in  that  event,  that  he  will  not  be  paid  therefor,  but 
will  be  entitled  to  compensation  only  for  the  services  he  has  actu- 
ally rendered.*  The  right  to  substitute  counsel  is  not,  as  a  rule, 
affected  by  the  fact  that  the  client  is  acting  in  a  representative  or 
fiduciary  capacity.  It  has  been  so  held  as  to  executors,  adminis- 
trators,® and  guardians  ad  litem.''  And  where  the  receiver  for  a 
national  bank,  who  was  plaintiff  in  a  number  of  cases  brought 
for  the  collection  of  claims,  petitioned  for  the  exclusion  of  the  at- 
torney of  record  (one  not  appointed  by  such  receiver)  in  such 
cases  from  further  appearance  therein,  the  court  said:  "Consid- 
eration for  the  rights  of  the  parties  whose  interests  are  represented 
by  this  receiver  requires  me  to  hold  that  in  all  pending  cases  in 
wdiich  further  proceedings  or  some  further  action  of  the  court  may 
be  necessary,  the  receiver  has  the  right  to  dismiss  his  attorney  at 
pleasure  after  payment  of  lawful  charges  for  services  rendered, 
and  to  employ  a  new  attorney  to  conduct  such  further  proceed- 
ings without  assigning  any  reason  for  his  action."  '  But  it  has 
also  been  held  that  the  right  of  a  receiver  for  an  insolvent  cor]5o- 
ration,  acting  for  the  benefit  of  its  creditors,  to  change  attorneys, 
does  not  rest  entirely  upon  his  own  volition,  and  that,  in  such 
case,  the  court  has  the  right  to  examine  the  reasons  for  the  con- 
templated change  and  determine  how  it  will  affect  the   interests 

3  Woodford  f.  Rasbacli,  6  Civ.  Pro.  6  .Tolmson  v.  V.  S..   il  Ct.  CI.  724. 
(N.   Y.)    .315.  'Bryant    v.    Brooklyn    Heights    R. 

4  O'Connor     r.    Hendriek.    90    App.  Co.,  G4  App.  Div.  542,  72  N.  Y.  S.  :i08. 
Div.  432,  86  X.  Y.  S.  1.  8  In  re  Herman,  50  Fed.  517. 

5  .Tolinson  /".  Ravitch,  113  App.  Div. 
810,  99  N.  Y.  S.   1059. 


256  RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§    14-1- 

of  the  beneficiaries  for  whom  the  receiver  is  acting.^  This  distinc- 
tion between  receivers  and  ordinary  clients  is  based  upon  the  fact 
that  the  receiver  is  at  all  times  subject  to  the  direction  of  the  court 
in  the  performance  of  his  duties,  and  that  it  may  even  control  the 
selection  of  his  counsel  should  it  become  proper  to  do  so.^°  Un- 
less, however,  the  court  is  satisfied  that  the  interests  of  the  credit- 
ors would  be  prejudiced  by  the  change,  it  is  the  plain  right  of  the 
receiver  to  select  his  own  attorney,  and  a  motion  for  substitution 
should  be  granted. ^^  Even  a  statute  providing  for  substitution  of 
an  attorney  after  notice  to  the  adverse  party,  does  not  authorize  an 
order  of  court  associating  a  new  attorney  with  others.''^  The 
right  to  discharge  counsel  has  been  considered  heretofore.^^ 

§  144.  Substitution  for  Cause. — Whether  a  substitution  is 
sought  for  cause,  or  without  it,  is  material  only  as  bearing  on  the 
terms  which  the  court  may  impose  in  allowing  the  change  to  be 
made.  Tliis  will  be  considered  later.^^  As  to  wdiat  will  constitute 
a  sufiicient  cause  for  the  removal  of  counsel  of  record  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  another  will,  in  most  cases,  depend  on  the  facts.  The 
death,  removal,  suspension,  or  other  disal)lement,  of  the  attorney 
will,  of  course,  necessitate  a  substitution,  and  is  usually  provided 
for  by  statute  or  rule  of  court.'^^  Statutes  of  this  kind  are  intended 
to  provide  for  those  cases  only  in  which  the  attorney  or  solicitor, 

SHirslifckl    r.    J5opp.    ,1    App.    Div.  the  api)ointment  by  the  client  of  an- 

202,  39  X.  Y.  S.  24.  other    attorney    or    solicitor,    in    case 

10  People  r.  Staten  Island  I5unk,  any  attorney  or  solicitor  shall  die, 
]12  App.  Div.  7m,  on  X.  Y.  S.  4S().  be  removed  or  suspended,  or  cease  to 

11  People  r.  Staten  Island  Bank,  act  as  such.  People  /;.  Plymouth 
112  App.  niv.  791.  99  X.  Y.  S.  4S(i.  Plank  Road  Co.,  32  Mich.  248. 

IzPrescott  r.  Salthouse,  .-)3  Cal.221.  The  New  York  Code   of   Civil    Pro- 

13  See  .s?/pra,  §  13S.  cedure,    §    6.5,    provides    that    "if    an 

14  See  infra,  §  147.  attorney    dies,    is    removed     or     sus- 

15  Dodf^e  r.  Schell,  12  l''e(l.  f)!,!;  ])ended,  or  otherwise  becomes  disal)led 
Dodge  r.  Schell,  10  Abb.  X.  Cas.  (X.  to  act.  at  any  time  before  juiljiment 
Y. )     4fi.").  ill    an    action,    no    further    ])roceedin<; 

Ihnlli    {IN    frrniiniiliufi    tlir   rcliilinn  shall    be   taken    in   the  action,  aj^ainst 

of   uttornn/  and  rlifnt    lias    been   con-  tlie   imity  for   wlioiii    be  apjicared,  un- 

■iidered  heretofore.     See  .sMprcf,  §§   140.  til     thirty    days    after    iiotice    t'l    ap- 

111.  |i(iiiit      aniitlier      attorney      has      been 

llie    ]l iciiif/iin   statute    [iruvidi's    for  ei\,.ii   to  that  party,  either  personally 

a  sta}   of  |»rnceeirni;,fs  in  the  eaiiie,  for  or  in  such   (ither  manner  as  the  court 


§    145]  RELATION    OF    ATTORlSrEY    AND    CT.TEICT.  257 

by  reason  of  death,  disability,  or  other  cause,  has  ceased  to  practice 
in  the  court,  and  not  to  a  ease  where  a  practicing  attorney  for  any 
reason  declines  to  go  on  with  a  particular  case  while  still  continu- 
ing in  practice.''^  Removal  from  the  state  or  judicial  district 
wherein  the  cause  is  pending  may  also  constitute  a  good  cause  for 
substitution.^'''  So,  also,  as  to  an  attorney's  elevation  to  the  bench; 
or  to  his  election  or  appointment  to  any  other  public  oifice  or 
occupation  the  dvities  of  which  are  incompatible  with  the  rendition 
of  service  to  his  client,^'  Substitution  will  also  be  permitted  for 
cause  where  the  attorney  of  record  has  been  guilty  of  misconduct 
toward  his  client, ^^  or  toward  the  court. ^  ^Vhere  a  litigant  had 
not  paid  his  solicitor,  it  was  improper  for  the  court  to  order  an- 
other solicitor  to  be  substituted,  merely  on  the  litigant's  request 
and  without  any  cause  being  shown  other  than  a  disagreement  as 
to  the  amount  of  the  fee.^ 

§  145.  Substitution  after  Judgment.  —  In  many  jurisdic- 
tions there  is  no  necessity  of  procuring  an  order  of  substitution 
after  final  judgment  has  been  entered  in  the  trial  court,  this 
being  considered  such  a  termination  of  the  cause  ^  as  will  author- 
directs."  Hickox  r.  Weaver,  15  Hun  l  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  56  How. 
375;  Agricultural  Ins.  Co.  c.  Darrow,  Pr.  ( N.  Y.)  270,  wliereiu  the  lourt 
70  App.  Div.  413,  75  N.  Y.  S.   128.  said:      '"If    the    plaintiffs    in    tliis    ae- 

16  People  r.   Plymouth  Plank   Road  tion    have    claims    whicli    thej?    deem 

Co.,   32    Mich.    248.  just    and    honest     .     .     .     they    may 

1' Jones  r.  U.  S.,  15  Ct.  CI.  204.  select  their  own  attorneys  to  enforce 

18  Where  a  party's  attorney  is  pro-  them;  but  such  attorneys,  in  their 
moted  to  tlie  bench  during  the  pen-  presentation,  must  not  seek  to  ini- 
dency  of  an  action,  thirty  days'  notice,  pose  upon  the  court,  nor  use  its  pow- 
personally  served  on  him,  to  appoint  ers  to  accomplish  their  purposes  by 
another  attorney,  is  sufficient  to  wicked  or  corrupt  practices.  If  they 
charge  him  witli  subsequent  proceed-  do,  the  court,  for  its  own  honoi  and 
ings,  without  a  rule  of  court  order-  dignity,  will,  either  on  its  own  mo- 
ing  such  appointment.  Given  t.  tion  or  at  the  instance  of  the  party 
Driggs,  3  Cai.  (N.  Y.)  150,  Col.  &  who  employed  the  attorneys,  remove 
C.  Cas.  485    (decided  under  the  code).  them   from   charge  of  the  action." 

19  School  Dist.  No.  116  r.  School  2  Lanagan  v.  Wayne  Circuit  Judge, 
Dist.  No.   141,  79   Kan.   407,   99  Pac.  170  Mich.  435,  136  N.  W.  398. 

620.     See  also  Schultheis  v.  Nash,  27  8  See  supra,  §  142. 

Wash.  255.   07   Pac.  707. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 17. 


258 


KELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   14(5 


ize  the  litigant  to  retain  other  counsel  for  the  purpose  of  conduct- 
ing such  further  proceedings  as  may  be  necessary  for  obtaining 
the  benefits  of  the  judgnient.*  Thus  other  counsel  may  be  em- 
ployed to  issue  execution,^  or  prosecute  an  appeal.^  So,  counsel 
other  than  those  emploj-ed  in  the  original  suit  may  be  retained  in 
attachment  proceedings  for  a  contempt  of  court  for  failure  to 
perform  the  award.' 

§  146.  Manner  of  Effecting  Substitution.  —  The  substitu- 
tion of  counsel  ma}'  be  effected  not  only  by  consent  of  the  attor- 
ney of  record  and  his  client  *  but  by  the  application  of  the  client 


4Egan  r.  Roonej',  38  How.  Pr.  (N. 
V.)    ]21. 

5  Hinkley  v.  St.  Anthony  Falls 
Water  Power  Co.,  0  Minn.  55 ;  Knox 
r.  Pvandall,  24  Minn.  479:  Thorp  r. 
Fowler,  5  Cow.  (N.  Y.)   446. 

The  employment  of  a  new  attorney 
to  enforce  tlie  judgment,  and  his  is- 
suing execution,  is  a  complete  substi- 
tution, so  that  service  of  papers  for 
a  stay  is  properly  made  on  him. 
Ward  V.  Sands,  10  Abb.  X.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)    60. 

CM'Laren  v.  Charrier,  5  Paige  (N. 
Y.)  530;  Pratt  v.  Allen,  19  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)  450;  Webb  r.  Milne,  10  Civ. 
Pro.  (N.  Y.)  27;  Magnolia  Metal 
Co.  V.  Sterlingvvorth  Railway-Supply 
Co.,  37  App.  Div.  366,  56  N.  Y.  S. 
16. 

Compare  Shuler  v.  Maxwell,  38 
Hun  240  (affirmed  }ri1hout  opinion 
101  N.  Y.  657),  wlierein  it  was  said: 
"Sections  1300  and  1302  of  the  Code 
of  Civil  Procedure  sliow  that  the  no- 
tice of  appeal  from  a  judgment  is  to 
be  served  upon  the  attorney  for  the 
adverse  l>arty  if  lie  is  living.  There- 
fore it  follows  that  the  jxiwcr  of  (he 
attorney  to  receive  a  notice  of  appe;il 
extends  beyond  llie  judgment.  T'y 
analogy    the    power    lo   serve   a   notic(! 


of  appeal  should  extend  in  like  man- 
ner. And  if  the  power  to  serve  a 
notice  of  appeal  does  extend  beyond 
the  judgment  by  virtue  of  the  pre- 
vious retainer,  then  it  follows  that 
another  attorney  cannot  serve  the 
notice  until  he  has  been  substituted."' 

'State  V.  Gulick,  17  N.  J.  L.  435. 

8  United  States. — Manning  v.  Hay- 
den,  5  Sawy.  360,  IG  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,043. 

California. — Prescott  V.  Salthouse, 
53  Cal,  221;  Withers  r.  Little,  56 
Cal.  370;  Gage  v.  Atwater,  136  Cal. 
170,  68  Pac.  581. 

Illinois. — Cohen  V.  Smith,  33  111. 
App.  344;  Chicago  Public  Stock  Exch. 
r.  McClaughry,  50  HI.  App.  358. 

Michigan, — People  r.  Plymouth 
Plank  Road  Co..  32  Mich.  248. 

l^ew  .  York. — Buckley  v.  Buckley, 
64  Hun  632  mem.,  45  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
827;  Matter  of  Prospect  Ave.,  1  N. 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  352  note;  Quinn  v. 
Lloyd,    36    How.    Pr.    378. 

Wisconsin. — ^IcMahon  i\  Snyder, 
117  Wis.  463,  94  N.  W.  351. 

Client  Nepresrnted  hij  Finn  ichicJi 
Dissolrcd. — Where  attorneys  dissolve 
their  i)artiiership,  a  firm  clienf;  has 
a  right  to  determine  whicli  paitner 
shall  continue   the   conduct  of  an   ac- 


§  l-t«] 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


259 


therefor  without  the  attorney's  consent;  *  but  whether  the  change 
be  effected  with  or  without  the  consent  of  counsel,  it  is  absohitely 
essential  in  most  states,  and  advisable  in  all,  that  the  substitution 
be  made  with  the  approval  of  the  court,^°  and  duly  entered  of 
record. ^^  A  substitution  of  counsel  made  ex  parte  by  one  or  all 
of  the  attorneys  is  a  nullity  if  made  without  the  client's  concur- 
rence or  consent.^^  An  order  substituting  one  attorney  for  another 
is  merely  an  incident  in  the  progress  of  a  cause,  and  no  such  order 
can  be  made  by  a  court  in  which  no  cause  is  pending  to  which  the 
order  can  relate. ^^  As  a  general  rule,  notice  of  the  application 
for  substitution,  or  the  hearing  thereon,  need  not  be  served  on  the 


tion  already  begun  for  liim  by  the 
tinii,  provided,  however,  that  the  ex- 
isting lien  of  the  firm  is  preserved; 
and,  therefore,  where  one  of  two  part- 
ners, upon  a  consent  signed  by  the 
client  and  by  that  partner,  of  his 
own  motion  in  the  firm  name,  pro- 
cured an  order  merely  substituting 
himself  as  sole  attorney,  the  court 
regarded  the  order  duly  obtained,  but 
amended  it  by  adding  a  provision  that 
it  was  without  prejudice  to  any  lien 
of  the  firm  attaching,  at  the  date  of 
the  substitution,  to  tlie  cause  of  ac- 
tion set  forth  in  the  complaint. 
Schneible  r.  Travelers'  Ins.  Co.,  36 
Misc.  522,  73  N.  Y.  S.  955. 

9  See  the  cases  cited  in  the  preced- 
ing section. 

lOSloo  V.  Law,  4  Blatchf.  268,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,958;  Wilkinson  v. 
Tilden,  14  Fed.  778;  Redfield  v.  U. 
S.  27  Ct.  CI.  473:  Cliicago  Public 
Stock  Exch.  V.  McClaugliry,  50  111. 
App.  358 ;  Roy  v.  Harley,  1  Duer  ( N. 
Y.)  637;  Mumford  v.  Murray,  Hopk. 
(N.  Y.)  369;  Hoffman  r.  Van  Nos- 
trand,  14  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  336;  Par- 
ker v.  Williamsburgh,  13  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  250;  Krekcler  v.  Thaule,  49 
How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  138;  Barkley  v. 
New  York  Cent,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  App. 


Div.  597,  59  X.  Y.  S.  742,  appca!  dis- 
missed 161  N.  Y.  647,  57  N.  E.  1103; 
People  r.  Staten  Island  Bank,  112 
App.  Div.  791,  99  X.  Y.  S.  486;  Wal- 
ton r.  Sugg,  01  X.  C.  98,  93  Am. 
Dec.   580. 

11  Prescott  r.  Salthouse,  53  Cal. 
211;  Withers  v.  Little,  56  Cal.  370; 
Ulster  County  v.  Brodhead,  44  How. 
Pr.  (X.  Y.)  426;  Krekeler  r.  Thaule, 
49  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  138;  In  re 
Rieser,  137  App.  Div.  177,  121  X.  Y. 
S.    1070. 

12  Cohen  r.  Smith,  33  111.  App. 
344;  Hackley  v.  Muskegon  Circuit 
Judge,  58  Midi.  454,  25  X.  W.  462; 
Buckley  r.  Buckley,  64  Hun  632  mem., 
45  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  827 ;  Felt  v.  Xichols, 
21  Misc.  404,  47  X.  Y.  S.  951;  Mc- 
:\[ahon  r.  Snyder,  117  Wis.  463,  94 
X.  W.  351. 

Consent  Binds  Attorney.  —  See 
Quinn  v.  Lloyd.  36  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 
378,  wherein  it  was  held  tliat  a  con- 
sent for  substitution  given  by  an  at- 
torney to  his  client  precluded  the 
attorney  from  acting  subsequently  in 
the  action,  notwithstanding  the  fact 
that  no  order  has  been  entered  on 
such   consent. 

13  In  re  Krakauer,  33  Misc.  674,  68 
X.   Y.   S.  935. 


260  KELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§    147 

opposing-  party  or  his  counsel ;  but  in  some  states  such  notice  is 
required  either  by  statute  or  rule  of  court. ^*  Notice  of  the  sub- 
stitution when  etfected  is,  of  course,  essential. ^^ 

§  147.  Terms.  —  In  allowing  an  application  for  the  substitu- 
tion of  counsel,  the  court  may  impose  such  terms  as  are  justified 
by  the  facts  as  being  proper  and  equitable  between  the  litigant  and 
the  attorney  whose  removal  is  sought ;  ^®  or  the  application  may 
be  allowed  unconditionally  if  that  course  is  warranted.^'  This 
question  generally  presents  itself  where,  on  an  application  for 
substitution,  counsel  request  the  court  to  protect  them  in  so  far 
as  compensation  has  become  due,  or  lien  rights  have  accrued,  to 
them.  It  has  been  stated  heretofore  that  the  client  may  not  only 
discharge  his  attorney  at  any  time  with  or  without  cause, ^^  but 
that  he  may  also  have  other  counsel  substituted  to  represent  him 
in  pending  actions. ^^  It  is  evident,  however,  that  these  rules,  if 
unlimited,  would  not  only  work  injury  to  the  attorney  originally 
retained,  but  would  actually  put  into  the  hands  of  discontented 
clients  and  overanxious  lawyers  a  weapon  wherewith  to  defraud 
him ;  and  that  this  is  the  actual  result  of  the  unrestricted  opera- 
tion of  these  rules  is  evidenced  not  only  by  many  adjudicated 
cases,*  but  by  the  experience  of  practitioners  generally  in  those 
states  wherein  no  legislative  or  other  action  has  been  taken  for 
the  protection  of  counsel  fees  in  this  respect.     Substitution  cannot 

14  IJiiiidbfro;  /•.  BclcIuM-.  118  Cal.  339;  Stevenson  V.  Stevenson.  3  Edw. 
589,  50  Pac.  670;  Schultlieis  v.  Nash,  (N.  Y.)  340;  Whitman  r.  Seibert,  27 
27  Wash.  250,  07  Pac.  707.  Misc.   814.  59  N.   Y.   S.   185. 

15  See  infra,  §  149.  18  See  supra,  §  138. 

16  Kapph'r    r.    Siiiiiptor,     33     App.  19  Sec  .s»//rff.  §  143. 

Cas.    (D.  C.)    404.  i  Ba<l   I'nith    huiicdtrd   by   Applira- 

.Yeic  York. — Rule  X.  of  the  general  tion  for  Suhstitiitiop. — ^^'here  the  cir- 

rules   of   practice   provides;      "An  at-  cumstances  leading  to  the  application 

torney    may    be    clianged    by    consent  for    substitution    of    attorneys    indi- 

of  tlie  party  and  his  attorney,  or  up-  cate  bad  faith,  or  collusion,  or  fraud, 

on     apjjiicatinri     of    the    client    upon  or   an   attempt  to   elieat   llie   attorney 

cause  shown  and   upon  such  terms  as  of   record   out   of  his  just  chvims,  the 

sliall    be    just,    l)y    the    order    of    tin-  court  will   not  make  iui   order  of  su))- 

covirt    or    a    judge    thereof,    and    init  stitiition   until   sucli    (daims   are   paid, 

otherwise."  SandlxTg    r.    \'ict()r    (Sold,    etc.,    Min. 

ITI.aird     r.    Lain!     I  .\.    .1.)     3    Atl.  Co.,    18    Itali   Oil,   .^l   I'ac.   74. 


1 


§  l^T] 


RELATION  OF  ATTORNEY  AND  CLIENT. 


261 


be  prevented,  however,  merely  because  fees,  contingent  or  other, 
are  diie,^  or  a  lien  has  accrued,^  to  the  attorney  of  record ;  but  the 
I)ractice  in  several  jurisdictions,  in  the  allowance  of  applications 
for  substitution,  protects  counsel  in  so  far  as  he  is  entitled  to 
compensation   or    disbursements,*    and    also   with    respect    to    his 


2  United  States. — Ronald  v.  Mutual 
Reserve  Fund  L.  Assoc,  30  Fed.  228; 
DuBois  V.  New  York,  134  Fed.  570, 
(59  C.  C.  A.  112;  Silverman  r.  Penn- 
sylvania R.  Co.,  141    Fed.  382. 

California. — People  r.  Norton,  16 
Cal  436;  Gage  r.  Atwater,  130  Cal. 
170,  68  Pac.  581. 

Kentucky. — Henry  r.  Vance,  111 
Ky.  72,  63  S.  W.  273;  Root  v.  Mc- 
Ilvaine,  56  S.  W.  498;  .Joseph  v.  Lapp, 
78  S.  W.  1119;  Goodin  v.  Hays,  88 
S.  W.  1101. 

Xeip  York. — Gardner  V.  Tyler,  5 
Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  33 ;  Stevenson  v.  Stev- 
enson, 3  Fdw.  340;  Trust  v.  Repoor, 
15  How.  Pr.  570;  Cregier  v.  Chees- 
brough,  25  How.  Pr.  200;  Bryant  V. 
Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  64  App. 
Div.  542,  72  N.  Y.  S.  308;  Johnson 
r.  Ravitch,  113  App.  Div.  810,  99  N. 
Y.   S.  1059. 

Washington. — Schultheis  v.  Nash, 
27  Wash.  250,  67   Pac.  707. 

Compare  Gulf,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Mil- 
ler, 21  Tex.  Civ.  App.  609,  53  S.  W. 
709,  in  which  case  it  was  held  that 
one  having  a  claim  against  another 
for  personal  injuries,  who  contracts 
with  an  attorney  for  its  collection, 
and  in  consideration  for  his  services 
transfers  to  him  an  interest  in  his 
cause  of  action,  cannot,  without  the 
consent  of  his  attorney,  in  the  absence 
of  fraud,  revoke  the  powers  conferred 
on  him,  such  powers  being  coupled 
with  an  interest  in  the  claim. 

See  also  Steenburgh  v.  Miller,  11 
App.  Div.  2S6.  42  N.  Y.  S.  333,  where- 


in it  appears  that  an  attorney  con- 
tracted to  foreclose  a  mortgage  of 
$1,500  for  one-half  the  amount  recov- 
ered. Pending  the  suit  the  mort- 
gagee's interest  therein  was  levied 
on  by  a  judgment  creditor  for  .$480, 
the  creditor  buying  at  the  execution 
sale.  On  his  motion  another  attor- 
ney was  substituted  in  the  foreclos- 
ure suit,  which  was  continued  for 
the  benefit  of  the  creditor,  and  it  was 
held  that,  as  the  original  attorney 
had  a  greater  interest  in  the  suit  than 
tlie  creditor,  in  the  absence  of  miscon- 
duct on  his  part,  the  order  of  the 
substitution   was   erroneous. 

^Alabama. — Kelh'  f.  Horsely,  147 
Ala.  .508,  41    So.  902. 

Michigan. — Jones  v.  Muskegon  Cir- 
cuit Judge,  95  Mich.  289,  54  N.  W. 
876;  Wipfler  v.  Warren,  163  Mich. 
189,  128  N.  W.  178,  17  Detroit  Leg. 
N.    905. 

Missouri. — United  R.  Co.  r.  O'Con- 
nor, 153  Mo.  App.  128,  132  S.  W. 
262. 

New  York. — Prentiss  r.  Livingston, 
60  How.  Pr.  380;  Stewart  V.  Fleck, 
43  Hun  636,  6  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  524;  De 
Witt  V.  Stender,  52  Hun  615,  5  N. 
Y.  S.  602;  People's  Bank  v.  Thomp- 
son, 24  Civ.  Pro.  62,  30  N.  Y.  S. 
858;  Kunath  v.  Bremer,  53  App.  Div. 
271,  05  N.  Y.  S.  830. 

^England. — Twort  V.  Dayrell,  13 
Ves.   Jr.    195. 

United  States. — In  re  Paschal,  10 
Wall.  483,  19  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  992; 
Sloo  r.  Law,  4  Blatchf.  268,  22  Fed. 


262 


EELATIOX    OF    ATTOEXEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§  147 


lien.^    But  where  an  attorney  undertakes  a  suit  under  an  agree- 
ment that  his  client  may  substitute  another  attorney  at  will,  the 


Cas.  No.  12,958;  Wilkinson  v.  Tilden, 
U  Fed.  778,  21  Blatclif.  192;  In  re 
Herman,  50  Fed.  517;  New  \ork 
riionograpli  Co.  r.  Edison  Pliono;;rapIi 
Co.,  150  Fed.  233,  denying  rehearing 
in  148  Fed.  397;  Carver  i:  U.  S.,  7 
Ct.   CI.   499. 

Alabama. — Kelly  v.  Horsely,  147 
Ala.  508,  41  So.  902. 

Kentucky. — Joseph  v.  Lapp,  78  S. 
W.   1119. 

New  Jersey. — Hudson  Trust,  etc., 
Inst.  r.  Carr-Curran  Paper  Mills,  44 
Atl.  638. 

New  York. — Creigliton  v.  IngersoU, 
20  Barb.  541;  Stevenson  v.  Steven- 
son, 3  Edw.  340;  Mumford  v.  Murray, 
Hopk.  369;  Wolf  V.  Trcchelmanj  5 
Robt.  611;  Hoffman  V.  Van  Nostrand, 
14  Abb.  Pr.  336;  Ulster  County  r. 
Brodliead,  44  How.  Pr.  411;  Ogden 
r.  Devlin,  45  Super.  Ct.  631;  Howland 
r.  Taylor,  6  Hun  237;  Greenfield  v. 
New  York,  28  Hun  320;  Matter  of 
Prospect  Ave.,  85  Hun  257,  1  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  352  note,  32  N.  Y.  S.  1013; 
In  re  Mitchell,  57  App.  Div.  22,  9 
N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  224,  67  N.  Y.  S.  961  ; 
Bryant  r.  Brooklyn  Heiglits  R.  Co., 
64  App.  Div.  542,  72  N.  Y.  S.  308; 
Britisli  Empire  Typesetting  Mach.  Co. 
r.  Spellissy,  83  App.  Div.  640  mem., 
82  N.  Y.  S.  47;  Kane  r.  l?os(",  87 
App.  Div.  101,  84  N.  Y.  S.  111.  af- 
firmed 177  N.  Y.  557,  69  N.  E.  1125; 
Anglo-Continental  Chemical  Works  r. 
Dillon,  111  A].]).  Div.  418,  97  N.  Y. 
R.  1081;  IN  I. pi.'  /•.  St;it.Mi  Island 
P.iink.  112  .\p;>.  Div.  7!il,  Hit  N.  Y.  S. 
486;  III  rr  Cal.lc,  1  14  .\|)j).  Div.  375, 
99  N.  \.  S.  10!»fi;  .Iciiy  r.  Mnklc. 
128  App.  Div.  s;{3,  ]\-l  N.  V.  S.  UOi;; 
O'Suliivan  v.  Metrojiolitan  St.  R.  Co., 


39  Misc.  268,  79  N.  Y.  S.  481;  Led- 
erer  r.  Goldston,  63  Misc.  322,  117 
N.  Y.  S.  151. 

North  Carolina. — Walton  V.  Sugg, 
61  N.  C.  98,  93  Am.  Dec.  580. 

Utah. — iSandberg  v.  Victor  Gold  & 
Silver  Min.  Co.,  18  Utah  06,  55  Pac. 
74. 

Washington. — Payette  v.  Willis,  23 
Wash.  299,  63  Pac.  254;  Schultheis 
v.  Nash,  27   Wash.  250,  67   Pac.  707. 

Set-Off  Against  Fees  Due. — On  an 
application  for  substitution  of  attor- 
neys, an  indebtedness  to  the  client, 
of  the  attorney  sought  to  be  removed, 
will  be  set  ofl'  against  the  fees  to 
wliicli  the  attorney  is  entitled.  In 
re  Prospect  Ave.,  85  Hun  257,  1  N. 
Y.  Ann.  Cas.  347,  32  N.  Y.  S.  1013. 

5  United  States. — Wilkinson  r.  Til- 
den, 14  Fed.  778;  Ronald  v.  Mutual 
Reserve  Fund  L.  Assoc,  30  Fed.  228. 

Idaho. — Curtis  v.  Richards,  4  Idab.o 
434,  40  Pac.   57. 

Neio  Jersey. — Hudson  Trust  &  Sav- 
ings Inst.  V.  Carr-Curran  Paper  Mills, 
44  Atl.   638. 

New  Yor/.-.— Hazlett  r.  Gill,  5  Robt. 
611  ;  Ulster  County  v.  Brodhead.  44 
How.  Pr.  411;  Pliiladelphia  v.  Postal 
Tel.  Cable  Co.,  1  App.  Div.  387,  37 
N.  Y'.  S.  291;  Hinman  r.  Devlin,  40 
App.  Div.  2.34,  57  N.  Y.  S.  1037; 
Jeffards  r.  Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co., 
49  App.  Div.  45,  63  N.  Y.  S.  530; 
Anglo-Continental  Chemical  Works  r. 
Dillon,  m  App.  Div.  418,  97  N.  Y. 
S.  loSl;  In  re  Lesster,  149  App.  Div. 
938,  134  N.  Y'.  S.  401;  Schneihle  r. 
Travelers'  Ins.  Co.  36  Misc.  522,  32 
(  iv.  Pro.  273,  73  \.  Y.  S.  955;  Do 
Aiigelis  /•.  Savings  Bank,  74  Misc. 
394,  132  N.  Y.  S.  295. 


148] 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


203 


court  will  not  require  the  payment  of  fees,  in  advance  of  a  recov- 
ery, as  a  condition  of  such  substitution.®  Xor  will  the  court  make 
an  order  for  the  protection  of  attorney  fees,  or  alleged  liens,  for 
the  payment  of  services  which  are  without,''  or  of  doubtful,'  value. 
So,  also,  where  an  attorney  abandons  his  client's  cause,  is  unfaith- 
ful thereto,  or  acts  inconsistent  with  his  trust,  the  court  may  al- 
low substitution  without  payment  of  his  fee.^  The  determination 
as  to  whether  an  attorney  in  a  will  contest  has  been  guilty  of  such 
misconduct  as  to  justify  an  unconditional  substitution  should  not 
be  made  on  conflicting  affidavits.^" 

§  148.  Determining  Amount  Due  or  Existence  of  Lien.  — 

Where,  on  motion  to  substitute  attorneys,  the  amount  due  is  dis- 
puted, or  the  existence  of  a  lien  controverted,  the  court  may  deter- 
mine these  issues  for  itself  in  a  summary  manner,^^  or  the  ques- 
tions presented  may  be  referred  to  a  referee. ^^     Substitution  may 


See  also  Lodge  r.  Gaunt,  16  W. 
N.  C.  (Pa.)  438,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  an  attorney  who  was  retained 
to  bring  an  action,  and  acted  as  the 
plaintift"'s  attorney  up  to  the  time  of 
the  entry  of  the  judgment,  could  not 
thereafter,  on  motion,  be  compelled 
to  withdraw  his  appearance,  and  give 
up  his  record  title  to  a  part  of  the 
judgment  when  the  attorney  claimed 
that,  by  an  agreement  with  the  client, 
his  compensation  was  to  consist  of  a 
portion  of  the  judgment  recovered. 

6  Wilkinson  V.  Tilden,  14  Fed.  77S. 

7  Reynolds  i\  Kaplan,  3  App.  Div. 
420,  38  N.  Y.  S.  764;  Jeny  v.  Merkle, 
128  App.  Div.  833,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1106. 

8  Silverman  v.  Pennsylvania  R.  Co., 
141   Fed.   382. 

9Sloo  V.  Law,  4  Blatchf.  268,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,958;  Tuck  r.  Man- 
ning, 53  Hun  455,  17  Civ.  Pro.  175, 
6  N.  Y.  S.  140 ;  Barkley  V.  New  York 
Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  35  App.  Div.  167, 
54  N.  Y.  S.  970;  Barkley  v.  New 
York  Cent.,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  42  App.  Div. 


597,  59  N.  Y.  S.  742,  appeal  dismissed, 
161  N.  Y.  647,  57  N.  E.  1103;  Matter 
of  Mitchell,  57  App.  Div.  22,  9  N.  Y. 
Ann.  Cas.  224,  67  N.  Y.  S.  961 ;  Cary 
V.  Cary,  97  App.  Div.  471,  89  N.  Y. 
S.  1061. 

10  In  re  Lesster,  149  App.  Div.  938, 
134  N.  Y.  S.  401. 

n  Lederer  v.  Goldston,  63  Misc.  322, 
117  N.  Y.  S.  151. 

12  Dean  r.  Driggs,  82  Hun  561,  31 
N.  Y.  S.  548;  Matter  of  Mitchell,  57 
App.  Div.  22,  67  N.  Y.  S.  961:  Yu- 
engling  v.  Betz,  58  App.  Div.  S.  68  N. 
Y.  S.  574;  Matter  of  Dept.  of  Public 
Works,  58  App.  Div.  459,  69  N.  Y.  S. 
413;  British  Empire  Typesetting 
Mach.  Co.  V.  Spellissy,  83  App.  Div. 
640  mem.,  82  X.  Y.  S.  47:  Kane  v. 
Rose,  87  App.  Div.  101.  84  X.  Y.  S. 
Ill,  affirmed  without  opinion  177  X. 
Y.  557,  69  N.  E.  1125;  Anglo-Conti- 
nental Chemical  Works  v.  Dillon,  111 
App.  Div.  418,  97  N.  Y.  S.  1081; 
Scheu  V.  Blum,  124  App.  Div.  678, 
109  N.  Y.  S.  130;  Lederer  v.  Goldston, 


264  RELATION  OF  ATTORNEY  AND  CLIENT.        [§  IV.) 

he  allowed,  however,  and  security  required,  pendinji  the  proceed- 
ing before  the  referee. '^^  Where,  on  a  motion  by  j^laintiff  for  snb- 
stitntion,  and  to  fix  compensation,  the  withdrawing  attorney  sub- 
mitted an  affidavit  stating  that  he  had  been  retained  by  plaintiff's 
managing  director ;  that  later  he  agreed,  with  a  person  represent- 
ing plaintiff,  to  withdraw,  and  receive  a  certain  sum  of  money,  a 
percentage  of  the  damages  recovered,  and  an  equitable  share  of 
any  costs  awarded,  it  was  held  that  a  referee  should  be  appointed 
to  take  proof  as  to  the  alleged  agreement,  and  to  ascertain  the 
amount  due  thereunder,  if  proved,  and,  if  not  proved,  then  the 
reasonable  value  of  the  attorney's  services.''*  Upon  an  appeal  from 
an  order  fixing  the  amount,  the  court  is  at  liberty  to  examine  the 
record  for  the  purpose  of  determining  what  would  be  a  fair  and 
reasonable  compensation  to  the  attorney ;  ^^  and  it  is  within  the 
discretion  of  the  court  to  reject  the  referee's  conclusions.'^®  A  client 
who  seeks  to  remove  his  attorneys  without  any  charge  of  miscon- 
duct against  rhem,  waives  his  right  to  have  a  jury  trial  as  to  the 
amount  to  which  such  attorneys  are  entitled ;  ^^  but  a  claim,  pre- 
sented by  counsel  whose  removal  is  sought,  for  the  breach  of  the 
contract  of  employment,  cannot  be  summarily  determined ;  a 
claim  of  this  character  being  recoverable,  if  at  all,  only  in  an 
action  at  law  in  which  the  parties  would  have  the  right  to  a  trial 
by  jury.^* 

§  149.  Notice  of  Substitution. — Where  a  litigant  has  pro- 
cured the  substitution  of  another  to  take  the  place  of  his  original 
attorney  of  record,  it  is  necessary  that  due  notice  of  such  change 

03  Misc.  322,  117  N.  Y.  S.  151:  Ulstor  15  ]>an  v.   Drii,^,os,   82   Hun   51)1.  31 

County    r.    Brodlicad.    44    How.    Pr.  N.  Y.  S.  548,  affirmed  on  opinion  he- 

411.     See  also  Philadelphia   r.  Postal  loio  in  145  N.  Y.  595.  40  N.  E.  103. 

Tel.  Cable  Co.,  1  App.  Div.  387,  37  N.  16  Chatfield     v.     ll.wlolt.     2     Dom. 

Y.    S.    291;    Chatfield    r.    llewlott,    2  (N.  Y.)    191. 

Dcm.  191.  17Yuonsling  v.  Potz,  58  App.   Div. 

13  Isaacs   V.   Abraliani,    0   li.'p.   737,  8,  08  N.  Y.  R.  574. 

13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7.094;   Yuenglinj;  r.  18  In  re  Piil)Iic  Wdiks.  58  App.  Div. 

Butz,  58  App.  Div.  8,  08  X.  Y.  S.  574.  459,  09  X.  Y.  S.  413,  modified  107  N. 

HPritish         Kiiipirc        'iypcscttiiij,'  Y.  501,  00  X.  E.  781. 
Mach.  Co.   r.   Spcllis.sy,  83   App.    Div. 
040  mem.,  82  N.  Y.  S.  47. 


149] 


KELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


205 


be  given  to  the  op])osite  party  or  his  counsel.  Local  rules  or  statu- 
tory provisions  should  he  consulted  and  carefully  complied  with  in 
this  respect.''^  Even  though  it  should  not  be  required  by  any  posi- 
tive law  or  rule,  it  is  customary  and  advisable  that  such  notice  be 
given.  Under  the  practice  prevailing  in  many  jurisdictions,  the 
opposing  party,  if  not  notified  of  the  change,  need  not  recognize 
the  substituted  attorney  as  the  attorney  of  record,  nor  will  he  be 
bound  by  the  acts  of  such  attorne}'.^"  Indeed,  until  notice  has 
been  given  to  the  adverse  party,  he  may  lawfully  continue  to 
recognize  the  authority  of  the  original  attorney  of  record.^  Such 
requirements,  however,  are  for  the  benefit  of  the  adverse  party. 


19  England. — Ryland  ?;.  Noakes,  1 
Taunt.  342. 

United  States. — Wilkinson  c.  Til- 
den,  14   Fed.   778. 

California. — Grant  r.  White.  6  Cal. 
55 ;  Prescott  r.  Saltiiouse,  53  Cal. 
■22] ;  Witliers  r.  Little,  56  Cal.  370. 

Illinois. — Chicago  Public  Stock 
Exch.  V.  McClaughry,  50  111.  App. 
358. 

Maine. — White  c.  Johnson,  67  Me. 
287. 

Michigan. — Comfort  v.  Stockbridge, 
38  Mich.  342;  Kelley  v.  Circuit 
Judge,  79  Mich.  392,  44  N.  W.  925. 

Minnesota. — McFarland  V.  Butler, 
1]    Minn.  72,  77. 

Neiv  York. — Bogardus  v.  Richt- 
meyer,  3  Abb.  Pr.  179;  Hoffman  v. 
Rowley,  13  Abb.  Pr.  399;  Miller  v. 
Shall,  67  Barb.  446;  Given  v.  Driggs, 
3  Cai.  150:  Robinson  r.  McClellan,  1 
How.  Pr.  90;  Heath  v.  Taylor,  2  How. 
Pr.  121  ;  Dorlon  r.  Lewis,  7  How.  Pr. 
132;  Parker  r.  Williarasburgh,  13 
How.  Pr.  250;  Krekeler  v.  Thaule, 
49  How.  Pr.  138;  Hardenbergh  v. 
Thompson,  1  Johns.  61  ;  Hildreth  v. 
Harvey,  3  Johns.  Cas.  300;  Boeram  v. 
Jerome,  1  Wend.  293. 


Oregon. — Poppleton  t'.  Nelson,  10 
Ore.  437. 

Wisconsin. — Waterliouse  v.  Free- 
man, 13  Wis.  339. 

20  Comfort  V.  Stockbridge,  38  Mich. 
342;  Kelley  v.  Circuit  .Judge,  79  Midi. 
392,  44  N.  W.  925 ;  McFarland  v.  But- 
ler, 11  Minn.  72;  Robinson  v.  Mc- 
Clellan, 1  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  90;  Heath 
V.  Taylor,  2  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  121; 
Waterliouse  v.  Freeman,  13  Wis.  339. 

Sufficient  notice  of  the  retainer  of 
a  new  attorney  to  prosecute  the  ap- 
peal is  given  by  the  service  by  him  on 
the  adverse  party  of  the  notice  of  ap- 
jieal  and  the  undertaking  to  perfect 
the  appeal.  Magnolia  Metal  Co.  v. 
Sterlingworth  Railway-Supply  Co.,  37 
App.  Div.  366,  56  N.  Y.  S.  16. 

1  Maine. — White  v.  Johnson,  67  Me. 
287. 

Michigan. — Comfort  v.  Stockbridge, 
38  Mich.  342. 

New  yor/w— Miller  r.  Shall,  67 
Barb.  446;  Parker  v.  Williamsburgli, 
13  How.  Pr.  250. 

Oregon. — Poppleton  r.  Nelson,  10 
Ore.   437. 

Wisconsin. — Waterliouse  V.  Free- 
man, 13  Wis.  339. 


266 


EELATION  OF  ATTOENEY  AND  CLIENT.    [§§  150,  151 


and  may  be  waived  by  him  or  his  attorney,  and  such  waiver  may 
be  either  express  or  implied.^ 

§   150.  Effect  of  Substitution. —  The  effect  of  an  order  of 

substitution  duly  obtained  and  entered  of  record,  notice  of  which 
has  been  given  to,  or  waived  by,  the  adverse  party,  is  to  make  the 
substituted  counsel  the  attorney  of  record,  and  to  vest  him  with 
all  the  authority  which  that  position  implies.  Such  substitution, 
and  notice  thereof,  also  has  the  effect  of  cancelling  the  authority 
of  the  original  attorney  of  record,  and  he  can,  thereafter,  do  no 
act  which  will  bind  his  former  client.^  The  substitute,  however, 
will  be  bound  by  the  lawful  agreements  and  stipulations  of  the 
original  counsel  in  regard  to  the  litigation.* 

Imputed  Notice  and  Knowledge. 

§  151.  General  Rule.  — The  general  rule  is  that  notice  to,  and 
knowledge  of,  the  attorney,  during  the  existence  of  the  professional 
relationship  and  concerning  the  subject-matter  thereof,  will  be 
imputed  to  the  client ;  ^  so,  also,  a  client's  knowledge  of  facts  affect- 


2  Withers  f.  Little,  56  Cal.  370; 
l.ivermoro  r.  Webb,  56  Cal.  489;  Belle 
City  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Kemp,  2"  Wasli. 
ni,  67  Pac.   580. 

3  See  Sheldon  v.  Mott,  84  Kim  ^508 
mi-m.,  .32  N.  Y.  S.  667 ;  Felt  v.  Nich- 
ols, 21  Misc.  404,  47  N.  Y.  S.  951; 
Chamberlain  v.  Hedger,  10  S.  D.  290, 
73  N.  W.  75. 

4McDonongh  v.  Daly,  3  Mo.  App. 
606. 

s  United  States. — Galpin  v.  Page, 
18  Wall.  350,  21  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  959; 
Brent  r.  Maryland,  18  Wall.  430,  21 
V.  S.  (L.  ed.)  777;  Pogors  /•.  Palmer, 
102  V.  S.  263,  26  U.  S.  (L.  <m1.)  104; 
(iay  r.  Par])art,  100  U.  S.  679,  1  S. 
Ct.  456,  27  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  250;  Wight 
r.  Muxlow.  8  T.cii.  52,  29  Fed.  (as. 
No.  17.629;  I'.iiiuii  r.  .Jcflcraon  Coun- 
fy  Nat.  Bunk,  9  Fed.  258. 


Alahama. — Pepper  v.  George,  51 
Ala.  190;  Price  v.  Carney,  75  Ala. 
540. 

Arkansas. — Allison  v.  Falconer,  75 
Ark.  343,  87  S.  W.  639. 

California. — Bierce  v.  Red  Bluff 
Hotel  Co..  31  Cal.  160;  Borland  v. 
Smith,  93  Cal.  120,  28  Pac.  812;  Peo- 
ple V.  Duncan,  8  Cal.  App.  187,  96 
Pac.  414. 

Colorado. — Sliideler  r.  Fisher,  13 
Colo.  App.  106,  57  Pac.  864. 

Connecticut. — Swecnej'  v.  Pratt,  70 
Conn.  274,  39  Atl.  182,  60  Am.  St. 
Rep.  101. 

District  of  Columbia. — Patten  r. 
Warner,  11  App.  Cas.  149. 

Georfjia. — Whitten  r,  Jenkins,  34 
Ca.  297;  Brown  r.  Oattis,  55  Ga.  416; 
Barlichl  /;.  McCombs,  89  Ga.  799,  15 
S.  K.  COO. 


§  151] 


RELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


207 


Haivaii. — Tisdale  i\  The  Bark  H. 
W.  Almy,  4  Hawaii  503. 

Illinois. — Williams  v.  Tatnall,  20 
111.  553;  Webber  t'.  Clark,  136  111. 
256,  26  N.  E.  360,  32  N.  E.  748;  Ilaaa 
V.  Sternbacli,  156  111.  44,  41  N.  E.  5], 
affirming  50  111.  App.  476;  jNIanu- 
facturers'  Paper  Co.  v.  Lindblom,  80 
111.  App.  267 ;  Patterson  r.  Northern 
Trust  Co.,  132  111.  App.  208,  affirmed 
230  111.  334,  82  N.  E.  837;  McNemar 
r.  McNemar,  143  111.  App.  184. 

Indian  Territory. — Dorrance  v.  Mc- 
Alester,  1  Ind.  Ter.  473,  45  S.  W.  141. 

loica. — Walker  v.  Ayres,  1  la.  449; 
Jones  V.  Bamford,  21  la.  217;  Allen 
V.  McCalla,  25  la.  464,  96  Am.  Dec. 
56;  Walker  v.  Schreiber,  47  la.  529; 
Grouse  v.  Morse,  49  la.  389;  Hay- 
ward  V.  Goldsbury,  63  la.  436,  19  N. 
W.  307;  Foy  v.  Armstrong,  113  la. 
629,  85  N.  W.  753. 

Kentucky. — Lusk  v.  Salter,  1  Bush 
311;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Wool- 
ley,  12  Bush  451;  Seraonin  v.  Duer- 
son,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  169. 

.¥aine.— Blake  v.  Clary,  83  Me.  154, 
21  Atl.  841. 

Maryland. — Baltimore  ;;.  Whitting- 
ton,  78  Md.  231,  27  Atl.  984;  Shart- 
zer  V.  Mountain  Lake  Park  Assoc,  86 
Md.  335,  37  Atl.  786. 

Michigan. — Roskopp  v.  Circuit 
Judge,  97  Mich.  628,  56  N.  W.  940. 

Minnesota. — Sheldon  v.  Risedorph, 
23  Minn.  518;  Bates  v.  A.  E.  Johnson 
Co.,  79  Minn.  354,  82  N.  W^  649. 

Mississippi. — Allen  v.  Poole,  54 
Miss.  323;  Edwards  v.  Hillier,  70 
Miss.  803,  13  So.  692. 

Missouri. — Bank  of  Commerce  r. 
Iloeber,  88  Mo.  37,  57  Am.  Rep.  359; 
Hedrick  v.  Beeler,  110  Mo.  91,  19  S. 
W.  492 ;  Priddy  v.  Mackenzie,  205  Mo. 
181,  103  S.  W.  968.     See  also  State  v. 


Standard  Oil  Co.,  194  Mo.  124,  91  S. 
W.    1062. 

.Montana. — Roush  v.  Fort,  3  Mont. 
175. 

Nctc  Hampshire. — Butler  v.  Morse, 
66  N.  H.  429,  23  Atl.  90. 

Neic  York. — McCutcheon  v.  Ditt- 
man,  164  N.  Y.  355,  58  N.  E.  97, 
modifying  23  App.  Div.  285,  48  N.  Y. 
S.  360;  Stone  v.  Schenectady  R.  Co., 
99  App.  Div.  44,  90  N.  Y.  S.  742; 
Vogemann  v.  American  Dock  &  Trust 
Co.,  131  App.  Div.  216,  115  N.  Y.  S. 
741,  affirmed  198  N.  Y.  586.  92  N.  E. 
1105;  Hyde  v.  Bloomingdalc,  23  ]\[isc. 
728,  51  N.  Y.  S.  1025:  Bishop  v. 
Bishop,  30  Abb.  N.  Cas.  296,  24  N.  Y. 
S.  8SS;  Taft  V.  Wright,  47  How.  Pr. 
1  ;  Kendall  v.  Niebuhr,  58  How.  Pr. 
156,  45  Super.  Ct.  542 ;  Lockner  v. 
Holland,  81  N.  Y.  S.  730.  See  also 
Sommers  v.  Cottentin,  26  App.  Div. 
241,  49  N.  Y.  S.  652. 

North  Carolina. — Pierce  r.  Perkins. 
17  N.  C.  250;  Hulbert  v.  Douglas,  94 
N.   C.   122. 

Pennsylvania. — Hood  r.  Fahne- 
stock,  8  Watts.  489,  34  Am.  Dec.  489 ; 
Chester  v.  Schaffer,  24  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
162;  Mutual  Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc.  Case, 
19  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  504;  In  re  Patterson, 
234  Pa.  St.  128,  82  Atl.  1130. 

South  Carolina. — Sullivan  v.  Su- 
song,  40  S.  C.  154,  18  S.  E.  268;  Pee- 
ples  V.  Warren,  51  S.  C.  560,  29  S.  E. 
659 ;  Scottish  American  Mortg.  Co.  v. 
Clowney,  70  S.  C.  229,  3  Ann.  Cas. 
437,  49  S.  E.  569. 

Texas. — Givens  v.  Taylor,  6  Tex. 
315;  Stroud  V.  Casey,  25  Tex.  740,  78 
Am.  Dec.  556;  Van  Hook  V.  Walton, 
28  Tex.  59;  Riordan  v.  Britton,  69 
Tex.  198,  7  S.  W.  50,  5  Am.  St.  Rep. 
37;  Presidio  County  v.  Shock,  24  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  622,  60  S.  W.  287:  Brad- 
ford r.  Malone,  49  Tex.  Civ.  App.  440, 


26S 


EELAIION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


r§  151 


ing  litigation  is  equivalent  to  the  knowledge  of  his  attorney.^  Thus 
because  of  information  in  the  possession  of  his  attorney,  the  client 
may  he  charged  with  knowledge  of  the  intention  of  a  creditor  to 
create  a  preference  in  securing,  or  paying,  an  indebtedness  to  himj 
So  an  attorney's  knowledge  of  incumbrances  ^  and  conveyances,' 
though  unrecorded,^"  will  be  imputed  to  the  client.  A  client  is 
chargeable  with  notice  of  the  assignment  of  a  note,  if  his  attorney 
had  actual  notice  of  the  fact.^^  But  a  client  is  not  chargeable  with 
knowledge  acquired  by  his  attorney  when  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  did  not  exist  between  them,  and  it  is  immaterial  wheth- 
er the  attorney  became  acquainted  with  the  facts  before  the  pro- 
fessional relationship  began  or  after  it  had  terminated ;  ^^  except- 
ing that  if  information  acquired  before  the  relationship  began,  is 


]30  S.  W.  1013;  Bexar  Building  & 
Loan  Assoc,  r.  Lockwood,  54  S.  W. 
253 ;  Missouri,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Bacon, 
80  S.  W.  572;  Newton  r.  Easterwood, 
154  S.  W.  040. 

^'e)■mo)lt. — Vermont  Min.,  etc.,  Co. 
r.  Windham  Count}'  Bank,  44  Vt. 
489. 

Washington. — Wells  v.  Mc^Ialion. 
3  Wash.  Ter.  532.  18  Pac.  73 ;  Hyman 
r.  Barmon,  6  Wash.  516,  33  Pac. 
1076;  Deering  r.  Holcomb,  26  Wash. 
588,  67  Pac.  240,  561;  Schmidt  v. 
Olynipia  Light,  etc.,  Co.,  46  Wash. 
360,  90  Pac.  212. 

Canada. — Burns  r.  Wilson,  28  Can. 
Sup.  Ct.  207;  Real  Estate  Invest.  Co. 
r.  MetropolitUn  Bldg.  Soc,  3  Ont. 
476;  Green  v.  Stevenson,  9  Ont.  L. 
Rep.  671  ;  McCauley  v.  Butler,  1  Ont. 
W.  Rep.  343. 

6McNemar  V.  McNemar,  143  111. 
App.  184. 

7  Wight  V.  Muxlow,  8  Ben.  52,  29 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,629;  Sliidcder  r. 
Kisher,  13  Colo.  App.  106,  57  Pac. 
864.  Compare  Hoover  r.  Oreenhaum, 
(12  I'.arh.   (.\.  Y.)    IHS. 

8  Allison   V.   Falconer,   75  Ark.  343, 


87   S.  W.  639;   Fordtran   r.  Cunning- 
ham,  (Tex.)   141  S.  W.  562. 

9  Kendall  r.  Niebuhr,  58  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   156.  45  Super.  Ct.  542. 

10  Allison  V.  Falconer,  75  Ark.  343, 
87  S.  W.  639. 

11  Walker  r.  Schreiber,  47  la.  529. 
See  also  Daniels  v.  Pratt.  2  Tenn.  Ch. 
116. 

"^z  Alabama. — McCormick  r.  Joseph, 
83  Ala.  401,  3  So.  796;  Scotch  Lum- 
ber Co.  p.  Sage,  132  Ala.  598,  32  So. 
607,  90  Am.  St.  Rep.  932. 

California. — Wittenbrock  r.  Par- 
ker, 102  Cal.  93,  36  Pac.  374,  41  Am. 
St.  Rep.  172,  24  L.R.A.  197;  Chap- 
man r.  Hughes,  134  Cal.  641.  58  Pac. 
298,  60  Pac.  974,  60  Pac.  982. 

Ifanaii. — Cartwright  r.  Everett,  7 
Hawaii   216. 

Illinois. — Dunhip  r.  Wilson,  32  111. 
517;  Campbell  r.  Benjamin,  69  111. 
244. 

IjQuisiana. — Adams  r.  Henning,  9 
La.  Ann.  225. 

Massachusetts. — Victor  r.  Spald- 
ing, 199  Mass.  52,  84  N.  E.  1016,  127 
Am.  St.  Rep.  472. 

Wew    York. — Hope    F.    Ins.    Co.    V. 


151] 


KELATION    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


2G1) 


SO  precise  and  definite  that  it  innst  have  been  present  in  the  attor- 
ney's mind  and  memory  in  transacting  his  client's  l)nsiness,  knowl- 
edge thereof  will  be  imputed  to  the  client.^'  A  client  is  not  charge- 
able with  knowledge  of  information  which  his  attorney,  ihongh 
possessing  it,  is  not  at  liberty  to  disclose,  as,  for  instanct^,  confi- 
dential communications.^^  Nor  is  a  client  chargeable  with  knowl- 
edge or  notice  obtained  by  his  attorney  of  matters  in  which  he  is 
not  acting  professionally  for  his  client/®  or  while  he  is  acting  as 


Cambreleng.  3  Thomp.  &  C.  495 ;  Cen- 
tral Trust  Co.  V.  West  India  Imp. 
Co.,  369  N.  Y.  314,  62  N.  E.  387,  re- 
versing 48  App.  Div.  ]47,  63  N.  Y.  S. 
853. 

Xorth  Carolina..—StRrr  r.  Hall,  87 
N.  C.  381  ;  Arrington  r.  Arrington, 
114  N.  C.  151,  19  S.  E.  351. 

Pennsylvania. — Hood  v.  Fahne- 
stock,  8  Watts  489,  34  Am.  Dec.  489. 

South  Carolina. — Reed  v.  Reed.  19 
S.  C.  548;  Steinmeyer  r.  Steinmeyer, 
55  S.  C.  9,  33  S.  E.  15. 

Tennessee. — Cliicago  Sugar-Refin- 
ing Co.  r.  .Tac'kson  Brewing  Co.,  48 
S.  W.  275;  Kirklin  r.  Atlas  Sav.,  etc., 
Assoc,  60  S.   W.    149. 

Texas. — Smith  r.  Wilson,  1  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  115,  20  S.  W.  1119;  Taylor 
V.  Evans,  16  Tex.  Civ.  App.  409,  41 
S.  W.  877 ;  Beck  r.  Avondino,  20  Tex. 
Civ.  App.   330,  50  S.  W.  207. 

Washington. — Pacific  Mfg.  Co.  c. 
Brown,  8  Wash.  352,  36  Pac.  273. 

Attorney  Acting  for  Collection 
Agency. — Where  an  attorney  is  em- 
ployed by  a  firm  of  collecting  agents, 
who  have  received  the  claim  to  be  col- 
lected from  its  owners,  liis  knowledge 
is  not  that  of  the  owners  of  the  claim, 
but  of  tlie  collecting  agency  only. 
Hoover  r.  Wise,  91  U.  S.  308,  23  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    393,  affirming  61  N.  Y.  305. 

13  Denton  r.  Ontario  County  Nat. 
Bank,   150  N.  Y.  126.  44  N.   E.   781; 


Abell  i\  Howe,  43  Vt.  403;  Deering 
r.  Holcomb,  26  Wasli.  588,  67  Pac. 
240,  561. 

HThe  Distilled  Spirits,  11  Wall. 
356,  20  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  167;  Sebald  v. 
Citizens'  Deposit  Bank,  105  S.  W. 
130,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1244;  Wright  V. 
Snell,  12  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  308,  22  Ohio 
Cir.  Ct.  86;  Melms  r.  Pabst  Brewing 
Co.,  93  Wis.  153,  66  N.  W.  518,  57 
Am.  St.  Rep.  899. 

As  to  privileged  communications 
generally,  see  supra,  §§  92-132. 

15  United  States. — Hitner  r.  Suck- 
ley,  2  Wash.  465,  12  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
6,.343. 

Alabama. — Mundine  r.  Pitts,  14 
Ala.  84. 

District  of  Columbia. — Parish  r. 
Hedges,  34  App.  Cas.  21. 

Georgia. — Jordan  v.  Tarver,  92  Ga. 
379,  17  S.  E.  351. 

Kansas. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Benton.  42  Kan.  698.  22  Pae.  698. 

Massachusetts. — Victor  v.  Spald- 
ing, 199  Mass.  52,  84  N.  E.  1016.  127 
Am.  St.  Rep.  472,  202  INIass.  234,  88 
N.  E.   846. 

Michigan. — Larzelere  i'.  Stark- 
weather, 38  Mich.  96;  Stewart  r. 
Sprague,  71  Mich.  50,  38  N.  W.  673. 

Minnesota. — Trentor  v.  Pothen,  46 
Minn.  298,  49  N.  W.  129,  24  Am.  St. 
Rep.  225. 


270 


KELATIOX    OF    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§  151 


attorney  for  others. ■'^  Xor  is  merely  constructive  notice  to  an 
attorney  binding  on  his  client;  ^"^  thus  where  one  of  a  firm  of  attor- 
neys is  merely  chargeable  with  constructive  notice  of  a  transaction 
had  with  his  copartner,  but  has  no  actual  knowledge  thereof,  a  new 
client  who  employs  him  specially  for  the  transaction  of  other  busi- 
ness is  not  bound  bv  such  constructive  notice.^' 


Missouri. — Weil  r.  Reiss,  167  Mo. 
]25,  66  S.  W.  946. 

yew  Hampshire. — Tucker  v.  Tilton, 
55  N.  H.  223. 

Neic  York. — Van  Saun  c.  Farley, 
4  Daly  165;  Hope  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Cam- 
breleng,  3  Thomp.  &  C.  495;  Henry  v. 
Derby,  53  Super.  Ct.  125;  Sommers 
r.  Cottentin,  26  App.  Div.  241,  49  N. 
Y.  S.  652;  Olyphant  r.  Phyfe,  48  App. 
Div.  1,  62  N.  Y.  S.  688,  afirmcd  166 
X.  Y.  630,  60  N.  E.  1117;  Mathews  v. 
Damainville,  100  App.  Div.  311,  15 
X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  436,  91  X.  Y.  S.  524, 
re-versing  43  Misc.  546,  89  X.  Y.  S. 
493. 

North  Carolina. — Arrington  v.  Ar- 
rington,  114  X.  C.  151,  19  S.  E.  351. 

Tennessee. — Daniels  v.  Pratt,  74 
Tenn.  443;  Xeilson  v.  Weber,  107 
Tenn.  161,  64  S.  W.  20;  Kirkiin  r. 
Atlas  Savings  &  Loan  Assoc,  60  S. 
W.  149. 

Texas.— Mi-nh'y  v.  Zeigler,  23  Tex. 
88. 

Wasliington. — Haynes  r.  Gay,  37 
Wash.  230,  79  Pac.  794. 

Canada. — MacArthur  r.  Hastings, 
15  Manitoba  500. 

^^  Alabama. — Pt'p])er  v.  Coorge,  51 
Ala.  190;  Scotch  Lumber  Co.  v.  Sage, 
132  Ala.  598,  32  So.  607,  90  Am.  St. 
Rep.  932. 

Georgia. — Equitable  Securities  Co. 
7-.  Green,  113  Ga.  1013,  39  S.  E.  434. 

Illinois. — McCormick     c.     Wlieeler, 


36  111.  114,  85  Am.  Dec.  388;  Herring- 
ton  V.  McCollum,  73  111.  476. 

Kentucky. — Downer  v.  Porter,  116 
Ky.  422,  76  S.  W.  135,  25  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
571;  Sebald  ih  Citizens'  Deposit  Bank, 
105  S.  W.  130,  31  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1244. 

Michigan. — Warner  v.  Hall,  53 
Mich.  371,  19  N.  W.  40. 

Missouri. — Ford  v.  French,  72  Mo. 
250. 

New  Yor/o.— Denton  r.  Ontario 
County  Xat.  Bank,  150  X.  Y.  126,  44 
X.   E.   781;    McCutcheon  r.  Dittman, 

23  App.  Div.  285,  48  X.  Y.  S.  360, 
a  firmed,  164  X.  Y.  355,  58  X.  E.  97; 
Olyphant  v.  Phyfe.  48  Ap]).  Div.  1.  62 
X.  Y.  S.  688,  afjirmed,  166  X.  Y.  630, 
60  X.  E.  1117;  Bates  r.  Rosenberg, 
12]  XT.  Y.  S.  335. 

Pennsylvunia. — Chester  /".   Schaffer, 

24  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  162. 

South  Carolina. — Steinnieyer  v. 
Steinmeyer,  55  S.  C.  9,  33  S.  E.  15. 

Texas. — Rogers  v.  Driscoll,  125  S. 
W.  599. 

Washington. — Pacific  Mfg.  Co.  V. 
Brown,  8  Wash.  347,  36  Pac.  273. 

17  N.  W.  Construction  Co.  r.  Valle. 
16  Manitoba  201. 

18  Wittenbroek  r.  Parker.  102  Cal. 
93,  36  Pac.  374,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  172, 
24  L.R.A.  197;  Brown  r.  Wilson.  21 
Colo.  309,  40  Pac.  688,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.  228;  Weil  v.  Reiss,  167  Mo.  125, 
66  S.  W.  946. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

DEALINGS     BETWEEN    ATTORNEY     AND     CLIENT— ACQUIPJNG     AD- 
VERSE INTERESTS— REPRESENTING  CONFLICTING  INTERESTS. 

Dealings  Between  Attorney  and  Client. 

§  152.  General  Rule. 

153.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship. 

154.  Dealings  not  Necessarily  Void. 

155.  Necessity  of  Advising  and   Informing  Client. 
15(5.  Fraud. 

157.  Assignments  and  Conveyances  Generally. 

158.  Assignment  or  Conveyance  of  Subject-Ma tter  of  Litigation. 

159.  Conveyances  to  Defraud  Creditors, 
100.  Gifts. 

161.  Wills. 

162.  Contracts  to  Indemnify  Client. 

163.  Laches. 

Acquiring  Adverse  Interest  in  Subject -Matter  of  Employment. 

164.  General  Rule. 

165.  To   Whom   Rule  Applies. 

166.  Purchase  at  Judicial  or  Other  Public  Sale. 

167.  Outstanding  Titles. 

168.  Outstanding  Claims. 

169.  Purchase  Held  to  be  in  Trust  for  Client. 

170.  Rights  of  Third  Persons. 

171.  Effect  of  Client's  Consent.  " 

172.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship. 

173.  Laches. 

Representing   Conflicting   Interests. 

174.  General  Rule. 

175.  Extent  and  Application  of  Rule. 

176.  Test  as  to  Whether  Interests  Are  ConfUcting. 

177.  Effect  of  Former  Retainer. 

178.  Agreement  Permitting  Adverse  Employment. 

179.  Efl'ect  of  Accepting  Adverse  Employment. 

271 


272 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY   AND  CLIENT. 


[§    li 


l.-'O.  Restraining'  Attorney  from  Acting     AdviTscly  to  Client. 

181.  Civil  and  Criminal  Proceedings  liruwing  ont  of  Same  Subject-Matter. 

182.  Waiver  of  Objection. 

Dealings  Between  Ailorney  and  Client. 

§  152.  General  Rule. —  The  relation  of  attorney  and  client 
is  one  of  the  highest  trust  and  confidence,  requiring  the  attorney 
to  observe  the  utmost  good  faith  towards  his  client.^  The  law  re- 
gards the  client  as  being  under  the  influence  and  control  of  the 
attorney  while  the  ordinary  professional  relation  exists  between 
them,  and  for  that  reason  the  conduct  and  acts  of  the  latter  are 
closely  watched  and  scrutinized,^  especially  where  his  clients  are 
persons  of  inferior  capacity  and  inexperienced  in  business ;  ^  and 
if  the  transaction  presents  even  a  suggestion  of  unfair  dealing,* 
the  burden  of  proof  rests  with  the  attorney  to  show  that  it  was 


1  California. — In  re  Danford,  157 
Cal.  425,  108  Pac.  322. 

Illinois. — Jennings  v.  McConnel,  17 
111.   14S. 

Florida. — Bolles  v.  O'Brien,  G3  Fla. 
342,    59    So.    133. 

Indiana. — McCormick  r.  ^lalin,  5 
P.lackf.   509. 

loica. — Donaldson  v.  Eaton,  13G  la. 
650,  114  N.  W.  19,  125  Am.  St.  Rep. 
275,   14  L.R.A.(N.S.)    1108. 

Missouri. — Morton  c.  Forsee,  155 
S.  W.  705. 

Xebrasha. — Olson  r.  Lamb,  56  Neb. 
104,  70  N.  VY.  433,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
070. 

.\>i/i  York. —  Howell  r.  Ransom,  II 
Paige  538;  llaight  V.  Moore,  37  Super. 
rt.  101:  n<>  Rose  v.  Fay,  4  Fdw.  40; 
In   n'  Dunn,  :i05  N.  Y.  39S,  !)8  N.  E. 

on. 

\i)itli  ('(iroliiiit. —  ItiiOalow  r.  linf- 
falow,  22   N.   C.   241. 

0/.7«/(o»i«.— Caples  ;•.  State.  3 
nk!;i.  (rim.  72,  104  Pac.  4!)3,  494; 
Moiir  r.  Sands,   133  Pae.  238. 


South  Dakota. — In  re  Ramsey,  24 
S.  D.  266,  123  N.  W.  726;  Rice  c. 
Bennett,  137  N.  W.  359. 

Texas. — Hames  r.  Stroud,  51  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  562,  112  S.  W.  775. 

Wisconsin. — Ott  r.  Hood,  152  Wis. 
97,   139   N.   W.   762. 

One  ivho  represents  himself  tc  he 
an  attorney,  and  who  undertakes  to 
transact  legal  business,  is  to  be  held 
to  the  exercise  of  the  utmost  good 
faith  and  fair  dealing.  Miller  v. 
Whelan,    158    111.    544,    42    X.    E.    59. 

2  Lewis  r.  Helm,  40  Colo.  J7,  90 
Pae.  97;  Gruby  r.  Smith,  13  111.  App. 
43;  State  v.  Johnson,  149  la.  462,  128 
N.  W.  837:  Klein  v.  Borchert,  89 
Minn.  377,  95  N.  W.  215;  Goodenough 
V.  Spencer,  46  How.  Pr.    (K.  Y.)    347. 

3  Mills  V.  Mills,  26  Conn.  213;  Yea- 
mans  r.  James,  27  Kan.  19.");  Brig- 
ham  r.  Newton,  100  La.  2S0.  30  So. 
849. 

4  1'.  S.  Oil  ^  Land  Co.  r.  P.ell,  153 
Cal.  7S1.  90  Pac.  901;  Palms  v.  How- 
ard, 129  Kv.  668,  112  S,  W.  1110. 


§    152]         DEALIXGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  273 

fair,  just,  and  equitable.^     In  the  absence  of  such  proof,  the  court 


5  England. — Todd  /•.  Wilson,  9 
Beav.  486;  Stump  r.  Gaby,  2  De  G. 
M.  &  G.  623;  Gresloy  v.  Mousley,  4 
De  G.  &  J.  78;  He  Holmes,  3  Giff. 
337;  Hunter  r.  Atkins,  3  Myl.  &  K. 
113;  Lewes  i\  Morgan,  5  Price  42 ; 
Newman  r.  Payne,  2  Ves.  Jr.  H)!J; 
Gibson  r.  Jeyes,  6  Ves.  Jr.  266 ;  Wood 
V.   Downes,    18   Ves.   Jr.    120. 

United  States. — Rogers  v.  Marshall, 
3  McCrary  76;  U.  S.  r.  Coffin,  83 
Fed.  337;  Gilbert  r.  Murphey,  103 
Fed.  520;  Atwater  r.  Hadley,  Syllabi 
117,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  639;  Myers  V. 
Luzerne  County,  124  Fed.  436. 

Alabama. — Lecatt  v.  Bailee,  3  Port. 
115,  29  Am.  Dec.  249;  Boney  v.  Hol- 
lingsworth,  23  Ala.  690. 

Arkansas. — Thweatt  v.  Freeman,  73 
Ark.   575,   84   S.   W.   720. 

California. — Valentine  v.  Stewart, 
15  Cal.  387;  Kisling  v.  Shaw,  33  Cal. 
425,  91  Am.  Dec.  644:  Felton  r.  Le 
Breton,  92  Cal.  469,  28  Pac.  490; 
Pvoss  V.  Conway,  92  Cal.  632,  28  Pac. 
785;  Cox.  r.  Delmas,  99  Cal.  104,  33 
Pac.  836;  U.  S.  Oil,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Bell, 
153  Cal.  781,  96  Pa-.  901. 

Colorado. — Lewi.-,  t.  Helm,  40  Colo. 
17,  90  Pac.  97. 

Connecticut.— MiUs  v.  Mills,  26 
Conn.  213. 

Illinois. — Jennings  v.  McConnel,  17 
111.  148;  Morrison  /•.  Smith,  130  HI. 
316,  23  N.  E.  241 ;  Elmore  v.  Jolinson, 
143  111.  513,  32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am. 
St.  Rep.  401,  21  L.R.A.  366;  Miller 
r.  Whelan,  158  111.  544,  42  N.  E.  59; 
Ross  i\  Payson,  160  111.  349,  43  N. 
E.  399;  Robinson  r.  Sharp,  201  111. 
86,  66  N.  E.  299;  Day  r.  Wright.  233 
HI.  218,  84  N.  E.  226;  Gruby  v.  Smith, 
13  111.  App.  43;  Faris  r.  Briscoe,  78 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol,  I.— 18. 


111.  App.  242;  Boyle  r.  Read,  138 
111.   App.    153. 

Indiana. — McCormick  r.  Malin,  5 
Blackf.  523. 

Iowa. — Shropshire  r.  Ryan,  111  la. 
677,  82  N.  W.  1035;  Donaldson  r. 
Eaton,  136  la.  650,  114  N.  W.  19,  125 
Am.  St.  Rep.  275,  14  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
1108. 

Kansas. — Yeamans  r.  James,  27 
Kan.  195;  Matthews  v.  Robinson,  7 
Kan.  App.   118,  53  Pac.  81. 

Kentucky. — ^Bibb  v.  Smith,  1  Dana 
582;  Downing  r.  Major,  2  Dana  228; 
Smith  r.  Thompson,  7  B.  Men.  305; 
Clark  V.  Robertson,  43  S.  W.  245,  19 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1256. 

Maine. — Dunn  v.  Record,  63  Me. 
17;  Burnham  v.  Hcselton,  82  Me.  500, 
20  Atl.  80,  9  L.R.A.  90. 

Maryland. — Merryman  r.  Euler,  5!) 
Md.  588,  43  Am.  Rep.  564. 

Michigan. — Gray  v.  Emmons,  7 
Mich.  533 ;  Hooker  v.  Axford,  33  Mich. 
453;  Taylor  r.  Young,  56  Mich.  289, 
22  N.  W.  799. 

Minnesota. — Tancre  v.  Reynolds,  35 
Minn.  476,  29  N.  W.  171;  Klein  v. 
Borchert,  89  Minn.  377,  95  N.  W. 
215. 

Mississippi. — Meek  v.  Perry,  36 
Miss.   245. 

Missouri. — Caspari  r.  New  Jerusa- 
lem First  German  Church,  12  Mo. 
App.  314;  Barrett  v.  Ball,  101  Mo. 
App.   288,   73   S.   W.   805. 

Neio  Hampshire. — Whipple  v.  Bar- 
ton, 63  N.  H.  613,  3  Atl.  922. 

New  Jersey. — Brown  v.  Bulkley,  14 
N.  J.  Eq.  451  ;  Dunn  i:  Dunn,  42  N. 
J.  Eq.  443,  7  Atl.  842;  In  re  Sparks, 
03  N.  J.  Eq.  242,  51   Atl.  118. 

Neio  York. — Starr  v.  Vandevhey- 
den,   9   Johns.   253,   6  Am.   Dec.  275; 


274 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§    152 


will  treat  it  as  constructively  fraudulent.®     The  rule  is  one  of 


Brock  V.  Barnes,  40  Barb.  528;  White 
V.  Whaley,  3  Lans.  327 ;  Howell  v. 
Baker,  4  Johns.  Ch.  118;  Arden  V. 
Patterson,  5  Johns.  Ch.  44 ;  Howell 
r.  Ransom,  11  Paige  538;  De  Rose 
f.  Fay,  4  Edw.  40;  Berrien  v.  Mc- 
Lane,  Hoffm.  421 ;  Goodenough  v. 
Spencer,  15  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  248;  Ford 
r.  Harrington,  16  N.  Y.  285;  Ncsbit 
f.  Lockman,  34  X.  Y.  167;  Hitchings 
r.  Van  Brunt,  38  X.  Y.  335;  Place 
r.  Hayward,  117  X.  Y.  497,  23  X.  E. 
25;  Haight  V.  Moore,  37  Super.  Ct. 
16];  Wood  r.  Brown,  50  Super.  Ct. 
516;  Gallup  V.  Henderson,  53  Hun 
633  mem.,  6  X.  Y.  S.  914;  Finlay  V. 
Leary,  87  Hun  8,  33  X.  Y.  S.  872; 
Turnbull  r.  Banks,  22  App.  Div.  508, 
48  X.  Y.  S.  40;  Couse  v.  Horton,  23 
App.  Div.  198,  49  X.  Y.  S.  132;  Snook 
r.  Sullivan,  53  App.  Div.  602,  66  X. 
Y.  S.  24:  McClennan  r.  Grant,  83 
App.  Div.  599,  82  X.  Y.  S.  208;  Gold- 
berg V.  Goldstein,  87  App.  Div.  516, 
84  N.  Y.  S.  782;  Bingham  v.  Sheldon, 
101  App.  Div.  48,  91  X.  Y.  S.  917; 
Kissam  v.  Squires,  102  App.  Div.  536. 
92  X.  Y.  S.  873;  Sheehan  r.  Erbe, 
103  App.  Div.  7,  92  X.  Y.  S.  862; 
Matter  of  Holland,  110  App.  Div.  799, 
97  X.  Y.  S.  202;  Purdy  r.  Wallace, 
47   Misc.   163,   93   X.   Y.   S.  608. 

Xorth  Dakota. — Reigi  r.  Plielps,  4 
X.  D.  272,  60  X.  W.  402:  Harnu-ning 
r.  nowhuid,   141    \.  \\'.   l.il. 

Oregon. —  iJinghani  i\  Saknc,  15 
Ore.  208,  14  Pac.  523,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 
152;  In  re  Holman.  42  Ore.  358,  70 
I'ac.  !I0S;  IhuniltoM  /■.  lloliiics  48 
Ore.  453,  87  Pac.  154;  Piiipps  r.  Wil- 
lis, 53  C)re.  190.  18  Ann.  Cas.  119,  96 
Pac.   8(;6.   !l!i    I'ac.   9;{:,. 

I'entiHtjl  vaiiia. — Green  11  eld's    Estate, 


14  Pa.  St.  509;  Henry  r.  Raiman,  25 
Pa.  St.  354,  64  Am.  Dec.  703;  O'Don- 
nell  V.  Breck,  7  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  24. 

Rhode  Isla^ul. — James  c.  Steere,  16 
R.  I.  367,  16  Atl.  143,  2  L.R.A.  164. 

South  Carolina. — Miles  r.  Ervin,  1 
McCord  Eq.  524,  16  Am.  Dec.  623; 
Taylor  v.  Barker,  30  S.  C.  238,  9  S. 
E.   115. 

South  Dakota. — In  re  Egan,  22  S. 
D.  355,  117  X.  W.  874. 

Tennessee.  —  Planters'  Bank  r. 
Hornberger,  4  Coldw.  573;  McMahan 
V.  Smith,  6  Heisk.  170;  Phillips  v. 
Overton,  4  Hayw.  291 ;  Rose  v.  My- 
natt,  7  Yerg.  30. 

Texas. — Cooper  v.  Lee,  75  Tex.  114, 
12  S.  W.  483;  Hames  v.  Stroud,  51 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  562,  112  S.  W.  775; 
Barnes  v.  McCarthy,   132  S.  W.  85. 

Virginia. — Thomas  v.  Turner,  87 
Va.  1,  12  S.  E.  149,  668;  Cullop  r. 
Leonard,  97  Va.  256,  33  S.  E.  611. 

Washington. — Landis  r.  Winter- 
mute,  40  Wash.  673,  82  Pac.  1000; 
Hetrick  r.  Smith,  67  Wash.  664,  122 
Pac.  363. 

Wisconsin. — Vanasse  r.  Reid,  111 
Wis.  303,  87  X.  W.  192. 

eCooley  v.  Miller,  156  Cal.  510, 
105  Pac.  981;  Appeal  of  St.  Leger, 
34  Conn.  4.34,  91  Am.  Dec.  735;  Rob- 
inson r.  Sliarp,  103  111.  App.  239, 
affirmed  201  111.  86,  66  X.  E.  299; 
Condit  r.  Blackwell,  22  X.  J.  Eq.  481. 

Heirs  nvay  recover  from  an  at- 
torney of  the  ancestor's  estate  all 
profits  made  by  liini  in  dealing  with 
its  assets,  though  there  was  no  actual 
fraud  on  his  part.  Beale  /'.  Barnctt's 
Adni'r.,  64  S.  W.  838,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
Ills. 


§    153]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTOENEY    AJfD    CLIENT.  275 

piiWic  policy,'  and  applies  not  only  to  the  attorney  himself,  hnt 
also  to  a  clerk,  in  his  office,  Avho  deals  with  the  client  in  a  matter 
with  which  he  became  acquainted  as  snch  clerk. ^  Thns  whore  it 
appears  that  a  transaction  between  an  attorney  and  his  client  re- 
sults to  the  attorney's  adyantage,^  or  to  the  client's  detriment,^"  it 
is  incumbent  ou  the  attorney  to  show  that  the  client  was  in  a  posi- 
tion to  deal  with  him  at  arm's  length, ^^  that  he  fully  advised  the 
client  of  the  legal  effect  and  eonseqiuuices  of  the  transaction,^^  and 
that  such  transaction  is  fair  and  equitable, ^^  without  misrejire- 
sentation  or  concealment,^*  and  as  beneficial  to  the  client  as  it 
would  haye  been  had  the  client  been  dealing  with  a  stranger. ^^  In 
such  cases  all  presumptions  are  in  favor  of  the  client  and  against 
the  propriety  of  the  transaction ;  ^^  and  where  there  is  a  doubt  or 
ambio'uitv,  the  benefit  thereof  is  to  be  oiven  to  the  client.^'''  But  the 
rule  placing  on  an  attorney  the  burden  to  prove  the  good  faith  of 
every  contract  with  his  client  does  not  apply  where  the  onh^  ques- 
tion is  one  of  the  construction  of  the  contract.^* 

§  153.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship. —  The  rule 
that  an  attorney  who  contracts  with  his  client  must  show  that  no 
advantage    was   taken   of   the    situation    applies,    of   course,    only 

7Merrymaii   v.   Eiiler,   59   Md.   588,  536.  92  X.  Y.  S.  873;  Miles  (;.  Ervin, 

43  Am.  Rep.  564.  ]    McCord   Eq.    (S.   C.)    524,    16   Am. 

sPoillon    r.   Martin,    1    Sandf.    Cli.  Dec.   623. 

(N.   Y.)    569.  iSFaris     v.     Briscoe,    78    111.    App. 

9De  Rose  r.  Fay,  4  Edw.    (N.  Y.)  242. 

40:    Wood    r.    Brown,    50    Super.    Ct.  14  Faris  r.  Briscoe,  78  111.  App.  242. 

(N.   Y.)    516;    Miles   v.   Ervin,  1  Me-  15  in  re  Holland,  110  App.  Div.  799, 

Cord   Eq.    (S.    C.)    524,    16   Am.   Dec.  97  X.  Y.  S.  202;  Phipps  r.  \yillis.  53 

623.  Ore.    190,   18   Ann.   Cas.   119.    96   Pac. 

lOFelton  V.  Le  Breton,  92  Cal.  457,  866,  99  Pac.   935. 

28   Pac.   490.  16  Rogers    v.   Marshall,    3    McCrary 

11  U.  S.  r.  Coffin,  83  Fed.  337.  (U.    S.)     76;    Haight    v.    Moore,    37 

l^Felton  r.  Le  Breton,  92  Cal.  457,  Super.  Ct.   (N.  Y.)   161. 

28  Pac.  490;   Paris  r.  Briscoe,  78  111.  "McKay   r.   Lancaster,   15   Ky.    L. 

App.    242;     Bibb    r.    Smith.    1     Dana  Rep.  159:    Brackett  r.  Ostrander,  126 

(Ky.)    580;    Hill    v.   Hall,    191    Mass.  App.  Div.  529,  110  N.  Y.  S.  779. 

253,   77   N.  E.   831;    Barrett   r.   Ball,  18  Willoughby    r.    Mackall,    1    App. 

101    Mo.    App.    288,    73    S.    W.    865;  Cas.    (D.  C.)    411;    Wallace   v.  'I  own, 

Kissam    v.    Squires,    102    App.    Div.  8  Wash.  244,  35  Pac.  1080. 


276 


DKAXINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§    153 


where  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  exists.^^  Xo  presumption 
of  fraud  arises  because  one  of  the  parties  to  a  transaction  is  an 
attorney,  until  it  be  shown  that  the  other  is  his  client.^"  The  fact 
that  one  of  the  parties  to  a  contract  is  an  attorney,  and  that  he 
offers  to  and  does  draw  writings  without  charge,  does  not  impose 
n^wn  such  attorney  the  duties  and  obligations  of  the  professional 
relationship,  or  raise  a  presumption  of  fraud,  or  justify  a  finding 
of  undue  influence,  against  him.^^  It  must  be  shown  that  the 
attorney  had  been  consulted  in  regard  to  the  particular  transac- 
tion, or  that  he  was  in  a  position  to  take  an  unfair  advantage  of 
the  client.^  So,  also,  an  attorney  is  not  obliged  to  sustain  the 
burden  of  proof  as  to  the  fairness  of  transactions  which  take  place 
after  the  professional  relation  has  terminated.^  To  avoid  a  con- 
tract then  made,  and  otherwise  unobjectionable,  the  client  must 
show  that  it  was  procured  by  actual  fraud.^  But  the  court  will  not 
draw  a  nice  line  as  to  when  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client 
ceases,  and  will  not  enforce  any  contract,  made  while  the  confi- 
dence engendered  by  the  relation  continues,  where  the  parties  did 
not  deal  at  arm's  length,  and  on  equal  terms.*  The  relation  of 
attorney  and  client  presupposes  an  ascendant  or  controlling  influ- 


19  Jenkins   v.  Einstein.  3   Biss.  128. 

13  Fed.  Cas.  No.  7,26.5;  Tancre  r. 
Reynolds.  35  Minn.  470,  20  X.  W. 
171:   Bingham  r.  Salene,  1.5  Ore.  208, 

14  Pae.  523,  3  Am.  St.  Rep.  152.  See 
also  Hyer  r.  Little,  20  X.  J.  Eq.  443. 

An  attorney  has  lieen  held  entitled 
to  retain  profits  made  by  the  purchase 
of  shares  of  stock  from  an  adminis- 
trator, though  lie  had  been  employed 
by  the  administrator  in  specific  mat- 
ters affecting  the  estate,  if  he  did  not 
at  the  time  of  tlie  purchase  represent 
tiie  estate  for  any  purpose.  Beale  v. 
Barnctt.  04  S.  \^■.  838,  23  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
11  IS. 

20  'latom  r.  White,  05  X.  C.  453. 

If  a  party  w  lio  has  an  luidividcil  in- 
terest in  u  tract  of  huid  rmiiluys  an 
attorney  to  act  fm  him  in  rrlatioii 
to  liis  interest,  iind  at  the  same  (lnie, 


as  the  agent  of  another,  employs  the 
attorney  to  act  for  such  other  in  re- 
lation to  his  interest  therein,  the  re- 
lation of  attorney  and  client  does  not 
exist  between  the  employer  and  at- 
torney as  to  the  interest  of  the  party 
for  whom  the  employer  acted  as 
agent.  Porter  r.  Peckham,  44  Cal. 
204. 

21  Stout  r.  Smith.  08  X.  Y.  25,  50 
Am.    He]..  ti:52. 

l.lenkins  r.  P^insteiii.  ."!  Biss.  128, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,  205. 

2Xewkirk  r.  Stevens,  152  X.  C. 
408.  07  S.  E.  1013;  Jinks  r.  Moppin, 
(Tex.)   80  S.  W.  .300. 

3  Tancre  r.  I\eynolds.  35  Miim.  476, 
20  X.   W.    171. 

4  ('line  r.  Cliarles,  (Ky.)  124  S.  W. 
347. 


154] 


DEALirsGS    BEl'WKEX    ATTOliXKY    A^IJ    CIJEiSTT. 


enc'P  by  the  attorney  on  tlio  mind  of  the  client,  and  the  influence 
thus  acquired  may  extend  more  or  less  after  the  termination  of 
such  relation ;  and  when  such  is  the  case,  the  transaction  will  he 
scrutinized  with  the  same  jealousy  as  if  the  relation  had  contin- 
ued.* What  amounts  to  such  a  termination  of  the  relation  has 
been  heretofore  considered.® 

§  154.  Dealings  Not  Necessarily  Void. — Transactions  be- 
tween an  attorney  and  client  are  nut  necessarily  invalid/  and 
where  it  appears  that  no  advantage  was  taken  of  the  client,  that 
his  consent  to  the  transaction  was  not  procured  by  a  concealment 
of  the  facts,  or  by  any  other  improper  means,  that  he  was  fully 
advised  and  knew  the  eifect  and  consequences  of  his  act,  the  trans- 
action will  be  upheld.*  Thus  a  note  by  a  client  to  his  attorney 
will  be  enforced  where  there  is  strong  evidence  to  show  both  the 


5  Barrett  v.  Ball,  ]01  Mo.  App.  288, 
73  S.  W.  8(i5;  Mason  r.  Ring,  3  Abb. 
Dec.  (X.  Y.)  210,  2  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 
322.  See  also  Zeigler  v.  Huglies,  55 
J 11.  288;  Bingham  v.  Sheldon,  101 
App.  Div.  48,  91  X.  Y.  S.  917. 

6  See   supra,   §§    137-142. 

7  Myers  v.  Luzerne  County,  124  Fed. 
436;  State  v.  Fidelity  &  Deposit  Co., 
!)4  Mo.  App.  184,  67  S.  W.  958;  Van- 
asse  V.  Reid,  111  Wis.  303,  87  X.  W. 
192.     See  also  infra,  §  157. 

After  the  attorney's  death,  an  alle- 
gation of  wrongdoing  on  his  part 
will  be  received  with  disfavor.  Whit- 
ing r.  Davidge,  23  App.  Cas.  (D.  C.) 
15(i. 

8  England. — Gibson  v.  Jeyes,  6  Ves. 
Jr.  276 ;  Harris  v.  Tremenheere,  15 
Ves.  Jr.  34. 

United  Htates.—M.yQYS,  v.  Luzerne 
County,   124   Fed.   436. 

California. — Kisling  v.  Shaw.  33 
Cal.  425,  91   Am.  Dec.  644. 

Illinois.— B.oUe    v.    Rich,     149     111. 


436.  35  X.  E.  352,  affirming  46  111. 
App.  406. 

loira. — Baker  v.  Davenport  First 
Xat.  Bank,  77  la.  615.  42  X.  W.  452; 
Mitchell  V.  Colby,  95  la.  202,  03  X. 
W.   769. 

Kansas. — Holmes  v.  Culver,  89  Kan. 
698.  133  Pac.  164. 

Maryland. — Roman  v.  Mali,  42  Md. 
513. 

A>ip  York. — Xesbit  v.  Lockman,  34 
X.  Y.  167;  Helms  v.  Goodwill,  64  X. 
Y.  642,  reversing  2  Hun  410;  Audley 
r.  Jester,  148  App.  Div.  94,  132  X. 
Y.  S.  1061. 

Rhode  Island. — Peirce  r.  Palmer,  31 
R.  I.  432,  Ann.  Cas.  1912B  181,  77 
Atl.   201. 

South  Carolina. — Wise  V.  Hardin, 
5  S.  C.  325;  Wilson  v.  Cantrell,  40 
S.  C.  114,  18  S.  E.  517. 

Texas. — Hames  v.  Stroud,  51  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  562,  112  S.  W.  775. 

Wisconsin. — Dockery  v.  McLellan, 
93  Wis.  381,  67  N.  W.  733. 


278 


DEALINGS    BETWEEX    ATTOKAEY   AXD   CLIENT. 


[§    1^ 


execution  of  the  note  and  a  sufficient  consideration  therefor,^  and 
a  confession  of  judgment  by  a  client  to  Lis  attorney  will  be  sus- 
tained if  made  with  entire  fairness  and  full  knowledge  of  all  the 
circumstances.^"  So,  an  attorney  at  law  may  deal  with  his  client, 
and  his  client  with  him,  so  that  the  relation  of  debtor  and  creditor 
will  not  be  grounded  solely  upon  the  facts  of  each  service.^^  But 
even  as  to  such  transactions,  a  court  of  equity  will  relieve  the 
client  from  hard  bargains  entered  into  with  his  attorney ;  ^^  and 
whenever  the  attorney  has  made  any  profit  out  of  his  relations 
with  his  client,  other  than  his  reasonable  and  proper  fees,  he  must 
account  to  his  client  therefor.  ^^ 

§  155.  Necessity    of    Advising   and    Informing    Client. — 

An  attorney  cannot  allow^  his  personal  interests  to  become  antag- 
onistic to  those  of  his  client;^*  and  in  dealing  with  his  client, 
during  the  existence  of  the  professional  relation,  it  is  the  attor- 
ney's duty  to  advise  the  client  fully  and  impartially  with  respect 
to  the  business  which  they  are  about  to  transact/^  and  also  to 
impart  to  the  client  any  information   which  he  may  possess   in 


9  Cousins  V.  Partridge,  79  Cal.  224, 
2]    Pac.  745. 

10  Wise  r.  Hardin.  5  S.  C.  325. 

11  Gregory  v.  Scainan,  51  Super. 
Ct.    (X.  Y.)    517. 

1^  California. — Felton  r.  Le  Breton, 
92  Cal.  469,  28  Pac.  490;  Cox  r.  Del- 
mas,  99  Cal.  104,  33  Pac.  836. 

Illinois. — Jennings  v.  McConno!,  17 
III.  148;  Elmore  r.  Johnson,  14.S  111. 
513,  32  X.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Kep. 
401,   21    L.R.A.   366. 

Kentiu-ky. — Downing  r.  ^Major,  2 
Dana  228;  Smith  r.  Thomjjson,  7  B. 
:Mon.    305. 

Masfirirhiisrfts.—}V]\]  r.  Hall,  1!)1 
Mass.  253.  77  X.   E.  S31. 

.Yew  York. — Finhiy  r.  l.eary,  87 
Hun  8,  33  X.  Y.  S.  872;  Starr  r.  Van- 
(lerhcyden.  it  .lohiiw.  253.  6  .\in.  Dee. 
275;  Hairy  c.  Whitney,  1  Code  Uep. 
X.   S.    101. 


Tennessee. — Hose  v.  Mynatt,  7 
Yerg.  30. 

13  Tyrrell  r.  London  Bank,  10  II.  L. 
Cas.  (Eng.)  26,  8  Jur.  X.  S.  84!): 
Hobday  r.  Peters,  28  Beav.  (Eng.) 
349,  29  L.  J.  Ch.  780,  8  W.  R.  512; 
Usher  r.  Sands,  32  Ind.  302;  Beale 
r.  Barnett,  64  S.  W.  838.  23  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  1118;  De  Rose  r.  Fay,  4  Edw. 
(X.   Y.)    40. 

14  Roller  r.  .McGraw.  63  W.  Va.  462. 
60  S.  E.  410. 

15  Rogers  V.  R.  E.  Lee  Min.  Co.,  9 
Fed.  721,  14  Cent.  Law  J.  158,  3  Mc- 
Crary  76,  13  Rep.  39:  Dawson  r. 
('oi)eland.  173  Ala.  267,  55  So.  600: 
Sanguinetti  r.  Rossen,  12  Cal.  App. 
()23.  107  Pac.  560;  Crocheron  c.  Sav- 
age. 7.")  N.  J.  Eq.  589,  73  AtL  33,  23 
L.K.A.lX.S.)    679. 


156] 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


279 


relation  tlicroto.^^  The  construetive  notice  derived  from  the  record- 
ing of  a  mortgage  does  not  amount  to  such  full  disclosure  as  is 
required  in  view  of  the  fiduciary  relation.^'  An  attorney  cannot 
profit  by  withholding  the  benefit  of  his  special  knowledge  or  bv 
giving  false  counsel  during  the  continuance  of  the  relation,^*  An 
attorney  to  whom  a  claim  is  sent  for  collection,  and  who  reduces 
it  to  judgment,  is  not  estopped  from  asserting  against  such  clients 
a  prior  mortgage  from  the  debtor,  though  he  does  not  inform  them 
of  such  mortgage ;  they  not  having  been  prejudiced  by  his  with- 
holding the  information.^^  Where  a  lawyer,  ignorantly  and  mis- 
takenly, yet  honestly,  gives  advice,  and  thereafter  enters  upon  a 
speculation  in  respect  to  the  subject-matter  thereof,  the  law  treats 
him  as  the  agent  of  his  client,  and  holds  his  speculation  as  only 
for  the  client's  benefit.^" 

§   156.  Fraud.  —  Where   an   attorney   deceives   his   client   by 
false  representations  or  advice,  or  knowingly  permits  him  to  be 


16  Rogers  V.  Marsliall,  3  McCrary 
(U.  S.)  76;  Bolles  r.  O'Brien,  63  Fla. 
354,  59  So.  133;  Sutherland  v.  Reeve, 
151  111.  384,  38  N.  E.  130;  Fox  v. 
Fox,  250  111.  384,  J)5  N.  E.  498;  Palms 
v.  Howard,  129  Ky.  668,  112  S.  W. 
1110;  Phipps  r.  Willis,  53  Ore.  190, 
18  Ann.  Cas.  121,  96  Pac.  866,  99 
Pac.  935;  Roller  r.  McGraw.  03  W. 
Va.   462,   60    S.    E.   410. 

17  Taylor  v.  Barker,  30  S.  C.  238, 
9   S.  E.  115. 

^i  England.— Todd  v.  Wilson,  9 
Beav.  486;  Foy  r.  Cooper,  2  Q.  B. 
937,  42  E.  C.  L.  985,  6  Jur.  128. 

United  States. — Rogers  v.  Marshall, 
3  McCrary  76 ;  Baker  v.  Humphrey, 
101  U.  S.  494,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  1065; 
Doster  r.  Scully.  27  Fed.  782;  Stan- 
wood  r.  Wishard,  128  Fed.  499. 

Arkansas. — Jett  r.  Hempstead,  25 
Ark.   462. 

California. — Sanguinetti  v.  Rossen, 
12  Cal.  App.  623,  107  Pac.  560. 


7'7ori(Za.— Bolles  r.  O'Brien,  63  Fla. 
342,  354,  59  So.   133. 

Illinois. — Staley  r.  Dodge,  50  111. 
43;  Trotter  r.  Smith.  59  111.  240; 
Miller  r.  Wholan,  158  111.  544.  42 
N.    E.   59. 

Indiana. — McCormick  v.  Malin,  5 
Blackf.  509. 

Michigan. — Gray  r.  Emmons,  7 
Mich.   533. 

Mississippi. — Hoopes  r.  Burnett,  26 
Miss.  428. 

Neit-  York. — Howell  r.  Baker,  4 
Johns.  Ch.  118;  Aiken  V.  Van  Wert, 
38  Misc.  379,  77  N.  Y.  S.  881. 

Virginia. — Thomas  r.  Turner,  87 
Va.  1,  12  S.  E.  149,  668. 

Washington. — Gaffnoy  r.  Jones,  18 
Wash.  311,  51  Pac.  401. 

19  State  r.  Fidelity,  etc.,  Co.,  94 
Mo.  App.  184,  67   S.  W.  958. 

20  Bulkier  v.  Wilford,  2  CI.  &  F. 
(Eng.)  174;  Doster  v.  Scully,  27 
Fed.  782. 


280 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§     15('> 


deceived  by  the  false  representations  of  others,^  he  will  not  be  per- 
mitted to  retain  any  beneiit  derived  from  transactions  so  entered 
into  bv  his  client,"^  but  they  will  be  annulled;^  and  any  money 
paid  to  the  attorney,  or  profit  made  by  him,  as  the  resnlt  of  negotia- 
tions so  conducted  with  his  client,  may  be  recovered.*  Such  trans- 
actions will  not  be  permitted  to  stand  even  as  security  for  moneys 
advanced  by  the  attorney  for  the  client.*  The  client  has  the 
right  to  treat  all  acts  of  his  solicitor  touching  his  interest  as  done 
for  his  benefit.®  Public  policy  and  the  protection  of  private  rights, 
demand  that  the  attorney  shall  not  mislead,  deceive,  defraud,  or 
betray  the  confiding  client.  The  relation  is  confidential,  and  its 
betrayal  by  fraudulent  acts,  resulting  in  damages  to  the  client,  con- 


1  Smith  V.  Thompson,  7  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)    305. 

2  England.— Bu\k\ey  v.  Wilford,  2 
CI.   &   F.   177. 

United  States. — Rogers  i\  Marsliall, 
.3  McCrary  76. 

Illinois. — Herrick  r.  Lynch,  1.50  111. 
283,  37  N.  E.  221;  Harding  v.  Hel- 
mer,  193  HI.  109,  61  X.  E.  838,  af- 
firming 86  111.  App.   190. 

Kentucky. — Sniitli  r.  Tliompson,  7 
B.    Mon.   305. 

M inncsota. — Struckmeyer  t".  Lamb, 
()4  Minn.  57,  65  K.  W.  930. 

Mississippi. — Hoopes  v.  Burnett,  26 
Miss.   428. 

Xeio  Jersey. — Clcine  v.  Englebrecht, 
41  N.  J.  Eq.  498,  5  Atl.  718. 

New  York. — Lewis  v.  J.  A.,  4  Edw. 
599;  Gallup  V.  Henderson,  53  Hun 
633  mem.,  6  N.  Y.  S.  914,  affirmed 
127  X.  y.  667,  28  X.  E.  254;  Anony- 
mous, 16  Abb.  IV.  423;  In  re  Dema- 
rest,  II  Ajip.  niv.  156,  42  X.  Y.  S. 
444;  lliilly  r.  I'rovost,  98  App.  Div. 
208,  90  N.  \-.  S.  591;  Post  /'.  .Mason. 
91  N.  Y.  53!),  43  Am.  Rep.  689;  Looir 
V.  I^wton,  97  X.  Y.  478;  Dicker  /. 
Colien,  84    X.    Y.    S.    189,   277. 

I'cnnsylvania. — Yardley      i\     fUtli- 


bertson,   108   Pa.  St.  395,  1  Atl.   765, 
56  Am.  Rep.  218. 

Texas. — Hames  r.  Stroud,  51  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  562,  112  S.  W.  775. 

Vermont. — ^Marshall  v.  Joy,  17  Vt. 
546. 

Washington. — Landis  v.  Winter- 
mute,  40  Wash.  673,  82  Pac.  1000. 

Wisconsin. — Young  v.  Murphy,  120 
Wis.  49,  97  X.  W.  496. 

Unlicensed  Attorney. — In  Freelove 
V.  Cole,  41  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  318,  it  was 
held  that  the  rule  stated  in  the  text 
applies  to  an  unlicensed  attorney. 

3  McLead  v.  Applegate,  127  Ind. 
349,  26  X.  E.  830;  Richardson  r. 
Hagan,  9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  196  (abstract)  ; 
Cray  r.  Emmons,  7  Mich.  533. 

4Staley  v.  Dodge,  50  111.  43; 
Hooker  r.  Axford,  33  Mich.  453; 
Lewis  V.  J.  A.,  4  Edw.    (N.  Y.)    599. 

5Marden  r.  Dorthy,  12  Ajjp.  Div. 
176,  42  X.  Y.  S.  834. 

An  attorney  who  has  fraudulently 
attempted  to  overreach  his  clients  is 
not  entitled  to  reimbursement  for 
taxes  j)ai(l  under  the  scheme  to  de- 
fiaud.  Ileiiyan  /'.  Trevino,  (Tex.) 
i;!7  S.  W.  -158. 
6  Wheeler    c.    Willard,    44    Vt.    640. 


157] 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AJSTD    CLIENT. 


2S1 


stitutes  a  cause  of  action  against  the  attorney.'  The  courts  will 
examine  critically  all  transactions  between  attorney  and  client  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  the  client's  rights  and  preventing  fraud 
by  the  attorney ;  and  an}-  disadvantage  to  the  client  from  the  trans- 
action will  entitle  him  to  relief,^  without  proof  of  actual  fraud.^ 
The  burden  of  showing  that  the  transaction  was  fair  and  honest, 
and  that  the  client  was  fully  apprised  of  his  rights,  and  the  effect 
and  consequences  of  his  acts,  rests  with  the  attorney/"  as  stated 
under  the  general  rule.^^ 

§  157.  Assignments      and      Conveyances      Generally. — 

Assignments  or  conveyances  of  property  by  a  client  to  his  attor- 
ney, while  the  professional  relationship  exists,  are  regarded  with 
disfavor,  and  presumed  to  have  been  improperly  secured  by  the 
attorney  ^^  and  the  rule  of  caveat  emptor  does  not  apply  to  such 


7  Struckmeyer  v.  Lamb,  04  ]\Iiiin. 
57,  65  N.  W.  930. 

8  Palms  V.  Howard,  129  Ky.  068, 
]]2   S.   W.   1110. 

Injunction  to  Ifestrain  Attornei/ 
from  Availing  Himself  of  Unconscion- 
able Bargain. — Where  a  solicitor,  act- 
ing for  both  parties  to  a  conveyance, 
prepares  a  conveyance  to  himself  con- 
taining an  absolute  covenant  for  title 
on  the  part  of  the  vendor,  when  he 
knows,  or  must  be  taken  to  liave 
known,  that  his  title  was  defective, 
he  will  be  restrained  by  perpetual  in- 
junction from  proceeding  with  an  ac- 
tion on  such  covenant.  Williamson 
r.  Moriarty,  19  W.  R.   (Eng.)   818. 

9  Palms  V.  Howard,  129  Ky.  668, 
112  S.  W.  1110;  Pvichardson  v.  Hagan, 
9  Ky.  L.  Rep.  196;  Klein  v.  Borohert, 
S9  Minn.  377,  95  N.  W.  215;  Lewis 
V.  J.  A.,  4  Edw.   (N.  Y.)  599. 

10  California. — Valentine  r.  Stew- 
art, 15  Cal.  387;  Felton  v.  Le  Breton, 
92  Cal.  457.  28  Pac.  490:  Ferrea  V. 
Tubbs,  125  Cal.  687,  58  Pac.  308. 


Illinois. — Ross  r.  Payson,  100  111. 
349,  43  N.  E.   399. 

Kansas. — Yeamans  v.  James,  27 
Kan.   195. 

Kentucky. — Palms  V.  Howard,  129 
Ky.   668,   112   S.   W.   1110. 

Maine. — Dunn  v.  Record,  63  Me.  17. 

Minnesota. — Tancre  r.  Reynolds,  3.") 
Minn.  476,  29  N.  W.   171. 

New  Jersey. — Dunn  v.  Dunn.  42  X. 
J.  Eq.  431,  7  Atl.  842;  Porter  v.  Ber- 
gen, 54  N.  J.  Eq.  405.  34  Atl.  10G7. 

Ncio  YorJ:. — Howell  r.  Ransom,  11 
Paige  540;  Lewis  r.  J.  A.,  4  Edw.  599. 

Oregon. — Phipps  r.  Willis,  53  Ore. 
195,  18  Ann.  Cas.  119,  90  Pac.  866,  99 
Pac.    935. 

Tennessee.  —  Planters'  Bank  v. 
Hornberger,  4  Coldw.  569. 

Virginia. — Thomas  r.  Turner,  87 
Va.  1,  12  S.  E.  149,  068;  Story's 
Com.,   §§    308,   312. 

Washington. — See  Isham  r.  Parker, 
3  Wash.  755,  29  Pac.  835;  Wallace 
i;.  Town,  8  Wash.  244,  35  Pac.  1080. 

11  See  sui»-a,  §   152. 

12  United    States. — Rogers    v.    Mar- 


282 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORJS^EY   ANI)   CL1E:?^T. 


[§   15' 


a  transfer.^^  It  is  an  attorney's  duty,  where  he  enters  into  negotia- 
tions to  purchase  property  from  his  client,  to  use  due  diligence  to 
ascertain  the  value  thereof,  and  to  advise  his  client  wath  respect 
thereto.^*  It  is  a  well-settled  rule,  applicable  to  all  transactions 
between  attorney  and  client  by  way  of  purchase,  sale,  or  gift,  that 
the  attorney  who  bargains  with  his  client  in  a  matter  of  advantage 
to  himself  must  show,  if  the  transaction  afterwards  is  called  in 
question,  that  it  was  in  all  respects  fairly  and  equitably  conducted ; 
that  he  fully  and  faithfully  discharged  all  his  duties  to  his  client, 
not  only  by  refraining  from  any  misrepresentation  or  concealment 
of  any  material  fact,  but  by  active  diligence  to  see  that  his  client 
was  fully  informed  of  the  nature  and  effect  of  the  transaction  pro- 
posed and  of  his  own  rights  and  interests  in  the  subject-matter  in- 
volved, and  by  seeing  that  his  client  either  has  independent  advice 
in  the  matter  or  else  receives  from  the  attorney  such  advice  as  the 
latter  would  have  been  expected  to  give  had  the  transaction  been 
one  between  his  client  and  a  stranger.    The  client  must  be  so  placed 


shall,  3  McCrary  7G;  Eogers  r.  K.  E. 
Lee  Min.  Co.,  9  Fed.  721;  Brooks  v. 
Pratt,  118  Fed.  725,  55  C.  C.  A.  515. 

California. — Valentine  v.  Stewart, 
15  Cal.  387;  Kisling  v.  Shaw,  33  Cal. 
440,  91  Am.  Dec.  644;  Coffey  v.  Quint, 
92  Cal.  475,  28  Pac.  494,  799;  Cox 
V.  Delmas,  99  Cal.  104,  33  Pac.  830. 

Illinois. — Trotter  v.  Smith,  59  111. 
240;  Elmore  v.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  X.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  401, 
21  L.R.A.  366;  Ross  v.  Payson.  160 
111.  349,  43  N.  E.  399;  Willin  r.  Buv- 
dette,  172  111.  117,  49  N.  E.  1000. 

ioua. — Poison  r.  Young,  37  la.  19G. 

A'an.sas. — Yeanians  V.  James,  27 
Kan.    195. 

Maine. — Dunn  r.  Ilocord,  (i.'i  .Me.  17. 

Marijland. — Mcrryman  v.  JCulcr,  50 
Md.   588.  43  Am.  Rep.  564. 

Michi(/an. — Payne  v.  Avery,  21 
Mich.  524. 

MinniHsippi. — Cameron  V.  Lewis,  56 
Miss.  76. 


Ac(P  Jersey. — Porter  v.  Bergen,  54 
N.  J.  Eq.  405,   34  Atl.   1067. 

'Sew  York. — Brock  v.  Barnes,  40 
Barb.  521;  Howell  r.  Ransom,  11 
Paige  540;  Matter  of  Demarest,  11 
App.  Div.  156,  42  N.  Y.  S.  444;  De 
Rose  V.  Fay,  3  Edw.  369,  4  Edw.  40; 
Ford  V.  Harrington,  16  X.  Y.  285. 

Tennessee.  —  Planters'  Bank  v. 
Hornberger,  4  Coldw.  569. 

Texas. — Cooper  v.  Lee,  75  Te.v.  114, 
12  S.  W.  483. 

Verviiont. — ^Marshall  V.  Joy,  17  Vt. 
546. 

M'cst  Virginia. — Lane  r.  Black,  21 
W.  Va.  617;  Lewis  v.  Broun,  30  VV. 
Va.  1,  14  S.  E.  444. 

iSManheim  r.  Woods,  213  :\Iass. 
537,  100  N.  E.  747. 

14  Rogers  r.  R.  E.  Lee  Min.  Co.,  0 
FiMJ.  721,  14  Cent.  Law  J,  168,  3  Mc- 
Crary   79,   13   Reii.   39. 


§    157]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


2S3 


as  to  be  enabled  to  deal  with  his  attorney  at  arm's  length,  Avithout 
being  swajed  by  the  relation  of  trnst  and  confidence  which  exists 
between  them.  This  principle  is  established  both  in  England  and 
in  this  conntry.  It  is  one  example  of  the  general  doctrine  which 
the  law  applies  to  dealings  between  parties  who  stand  in  a  fiduciary 
relation  to  each  other.^*     The  rule  is  based  ujoon  the  consideration 


15  England. — Edwards    r.    Meyrick, 

2  Hare  60,  6  Jur.  924;  Gibson  f. 
Jeyes,  6  Ves.  Jr.  266,  5  Rev.  Rep. 
295;.  Holman  v.  Loynes,  18  Jur.  839; 
Pisani  v.  Atty.-Gen.  L.  R.  5  P.  C. 
517;    Cane  v.  Allen,  2  Dow  289. 

United  States. — Rogers  r.  Marshall, 

3  McCrary  76,  9  Fed.  721.  See  also 
Jones  V.  Byrne,  149  Fed.  457,  re- 
versed on  other  grounds  159  Fed.  321, 
90  C.   C.   A.   101. 

Alabama. — See  Kidd  f.  Williams, 
132  Ala.  140,  31  So.  458,  56  L.R.A. 
879. 

California. — Kisling  r.  Shaw,  33 
Cal.  425,  91  Am.  Dec.  644;  Cooley  v. 
Miller,  156  Cal.  510,  105  Pac.  981. 

Florida.— BoUes  v.  O'Brien,  63  Fla. 
.342,   354,   59   So.   133. 

Georgia. — Stubinger  t".  Frey,  116 
Ga.  396,  42  S.  E.  713. 

lUi)iois. — Jennings  v.  McConnc-l,  17 
III.  148;  Elmore  v.  Johnson,  143  111. 
513,  32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep. 
401,  21  L.R.A.  366;  Ross  v.  Payson, 
160  111.  349,  43  N.  E.  399;  Willin 
V.  Burdette,  172  111.  117,  49  N.  E. 
1000. 

Indiana. — See  McCormick  r.  }klalin, 
5  Blackf.  509. 

loira. — Poison  v.  Young,  37  la. 
196;  Shropshire  r.  Ryan,  111  la.  077. 
82  N.  W.  1035. 

Ka)isas. — Yeaman  v.  James,  27 
Kan.  195. 

Kentucky. — See  Palms  r.  Howard, 
129  Ky.  668,  112  S.  W.  1110. 

Massachusetts. — Hill    t".    Hall,    191 


Mass.  253,  77  X.  E.  831;  Manheim 
r.  Woods,  213  Mass.  537,  100  N.  E. 
747. 

Minnesota. — Tancre  v.  Reynolds,  35 
Minn.  476,  29  N.  W.  171. 

Xebraska. — Hamilton  v.  Allen,  86 
Neb.  401,  125  X.  W.  610,  28  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)   723. 

New  Hampshire. — See  Whipple  v. 
Barton,  63  X.  H.  613,  3  Atl.  922. 

Neio  Jersey. — Condit  v.  Blaclvwell, 
22  X.  J.  Eq.  481;  Porter  r.  Bergen, 
54  X.  J.  Eq.  405,  34  Atl.  1007;  Croch- 
eron  r.  Savage,  74  X.  J.  Eq.  02;),  70 
Atl.  353. 

Xew  York. — De  Rose  v.  Fay,  4  Edw. 
40;  Ellis  r.  Messervie,  11  Paige  407; 
Brock  r.  Barnes,  40  Barb.  521;  Poil- 
lon  r.  Martin,  1  Sandf.  Ch.  569;  Ford 
V.  Harring-ton.  16  X.  Y.  285;  Marden 
r.  Dorthy,  12  App.  Div.  170,  42  X.  Y. 
S.  834;  Sheehan  r.  Erbe,  77  App. 
Div.  176,  79  X.  Y.  S.  43.  See  also 
Berrien  v.  McLane,  Hoffm.  421;  Bing- 
ham r.  Sheldon,  101  App.  Div.  48,  91 
X.  Y.  S.  917;  Matter  of  Holland,  110 
App.  Div.  799,  97  X.  Y.  S.  202 ;  Brack- 
ett  V.  Seavey,  131  N.  Y.  S.  664. 

Xorth  Carolina. — See  Lee  r.  Pearce, 
68  X.  C.  76. 

Oregon. — Bingham  v.  Saleno,  15 
Ore.  208,  14  Pac.  523,  3  Am.  St.  Rep. 
152;  Hamilton  v.  Holmes,  48  Ore. 
453,  87  Pac.  154. 

South  Carolina. — See  Wilson  r. 
Cantrell.  40  S.  C.  114,  18  S.  E.  517. 

Tennessee.— See  Planters'  Bank  v. 
Hornberger,  4  Coldw.  531 . 


284 


DEAXINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CEIENT.  [§    157 


that  the  rehitioii  existing  hetween  the  parties  is  such  that  the  at- 
torney has  it  in  his  power  to  avail  himself  of  the  necessities,  liher- 
ality,  or  crednlity  of.  and  of  his  intlnence  over,  the  client,  and  of 
that  sense  of  dependence,  on  the  part  of  the  latter.  u|)on  his  attor- 
ney, which  always  exists  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  and  of  the  con- 
fidence which  the  client  reposes  in  his  attorney ;  and  also  upon 
the  fact  that  it  is  dilhcnlt,  and  in  most  cases  impossihle,  for  the 
client  to  show  that  advantage  has  been  taken  of  the  relation. ^^  In 
order  to  sustain  this  btirden  it  is  incumbent  on  the  attorney  to  show 
that  the  transaction  was  fair,  honest,"  and  equitable, ^^  that  he 
used  the  utmost  good  faith  in  dealing  with  the  client, ^^  that  he  ex- 
erted no  undue  influence  ^°  and  was  guilty  of  no  f  raud,^  that  no 
advantage  was  taken  of  the  client, '^  that  an  adeqtiate  consideration 
was  o'iven,^  that  the  client  understood  the  terms  and  conditions  of 


Texas. — Cooper  v.  Let%  75  Tex.  114, 
12  S.  W.  483;  Tippett  r.  Brooks,  28 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  107,  67  S.  W.  512,  af- 
firmed 95  Tex.  335,  67  S.  W.  495,  512. 

\'irginia. — Thomas  V.  Turner,  87 
Va.  1,  12  S.  E.  149,  668. 

Wisconsin. — Vanasse  v.  Reid,  111 
Wis.  303,  87  X.  W.  192;  Young  r. 
Murphy,  120  Wis.  49,  97  X.  W.  496. 

16  Ford  V.  Harrington,  16  X.  Y.  285. 

"Day  v.  Wright,  233  111.  218,  84 
X.  E.  226:  (Joldberg  c.  Goldstein,  87 
App.  1)1  V.  .■)](;,  S4  X.  Y.  S.  782; 
Cooper  V.  Leo,  75  Tex.  114,  12  S.  \N. 
483. 

18  Thweatt  V.  Freeman,  73  Ark. 
575,  84  S.  W.  720;  Faris  v.  Briscoe, 
78  HI.  App.  242;  Hill  r.  Hall.  191 
Mass.  262,  77  N.  E.  831. 

19  Rogers  v.  R.  E.  Lee  Min.  Co.,  9 
Fed.  721,  14  Cent.  L.  J.  168,  3  Mc- 
Crary  76,  13  Rep.  39;  Dunn  v.  Record, 
63  Me.  17;  Payne  r.  Avery,  21  Mich. 
521;  Young  V.  Murphy,  120  Wis.  49, 
97    N.   \V.    19(1. 

20  Cirtri-    /•.    Wot,   93    Ky.    211,    19 


S.   W.   592;    Dunn   r.   Dunn,  42   X.  J. 
Eq.  431,  7  Atl.  842. 

1  Carter  v.  West,  93  Ky.  211,  19 
S.  W.  592,  14  Ky.  L.  Rep."  191.  See 
also  supra,  §  156. 

2Kidd  V.  Williams,  132  Ala.  140, 
143,  31  So.  458,  56  L.R.A.  879;  Zeig- 
ler  r.  Hughes,  55  111.  288;  Dunn  r. 
Dunn,  42  X.  J.  Eq.  431,  7  Atl.  842: 
Hawley  r.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  (X.  Y'.) 
717;  Goldberg  v.  Goldstein,  87  App. 
Div.  516,  84  N.  Y.  S.  782;  Sheehan 
V.  Erbe,  103  App.  Div.  7,  92  X.  Y. 
S.  862;  Barrett  c.  Baniber,  9  Phila. 
(Pa.)  202,  31  Leg.  Int.  164;  Young 
V.  Murphy,  120  Wis.  49,  97  X.  W. 
496. 

SKisling  r.  Shaw,  33  Cal.  425,  91 
Am.  Dec.  644;  Fox  v.  Fox,  250  111. 
384,  95  X.  E.  498;  Arden  v.  Patter- 
son, 5  Johns.  Ch.  (X.  Y.)  44;  Ber- 
rien V.  McLane,  1  Hoffm.  (X.  Y.) 
421;  Hawley  V.  Cramer.  4  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  717:  Phipps  r.  Willis,  53  Ore. 
190,  18  Ann.  Cas.  119,  96  Pac.  866, 
99  Pac.  935;  Cooper  ;;.  Lee,  75  Tex. 
114,   12  S.  W.  483. 


§  157] 


DEALINGS    BET\VEi:.\    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


285 


the  transaction  *  and  was  informed  as  to  everything  necessary  to 
enable  him  to  form  a  correct  judgment  with  respect  to  the  real 
value  of  the  subject-matter  thereof.*  kShould  the  attorney  fail  to 
establish  the  bona  fides  of  the  transaction,  in  the  manner  indicated, 
it  will  be  set  aside.^  The  vendee  of  an  attorney,  with  notice,  ac- 
quires no  better  title  than  his  vendor  had.'  So,  a  mortgage  to  a 
third  person,  of  property  purchased  by  an  attorney  from  his  client, 
will  be  set  aside  where  the  presumption  that  the  attorney  did  not 
acquire  the  property  in  good  faith  is  not  overcome,  and  the  mort- 
gagee has  full  knowledge  of  the  client's  equities  in  the  property.* 
But  notwithstanding  the  stringency  of  the  foregoing  rule,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  there  is  no  absolute  inhibition  of  the  assigTiment  or  con- 
veyance of  property  by  a  client  to  his  attorney,®  nor  are  such  trans- 
actions necessarily  voidable. ■^°  Therefore  if  the  transaction  was  in 
good  faith,  fair,  honest,  and  equitable,  and  is  so  established  by  the 
attorney,  as  required  by  the  rule  above  stated,  it  will  be  upheld. ^^ 


4  Dunn  V.  Dunn.  42  X.  J.  Eq.  431, 
7  Atl.  842;  Sheelian  r.  Erbe,  10:3  App. 
Div.  7,  92  N.  Y.  S.  862. 

5  Tliweatt  V.  Freeman,  73  Ark.  575, 
84  S.  W.  720;  Kisling  v.  Shaw,  33 
Cal.  425,  91  Am.  Dec.  G44;  Howell 
v.  Ransom,  11  Paige   (N.  Y.)   538. 

6Atwater  v.  Hadlej-,  Syllabi  117,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  639;  Rogers  V.  R.  E. 
Lee  Min.  Co.,  9  Fed.  721,  13  Rep.  39; 
Brooks  c.  Pratt,  118  Fed.  725,  55  C. 
C.  A.  515;  Roby  r.  Colehour,  135  111. 
300,  25  N.  E.  777;  Ross  r.  Payson, 
160  111.  349,  43  N.  E.  399;  Cline  );. 
Charles,  (Ky.)  124  S.  W.  347;  Hand- 
lin  V.  Davis,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep.  675;  Bar- 
rett r.  Ball,  101  Mo.  App.  288,  73  S. 
W.  865. 

7Alwood  r.  ^lansfield,  59  111.  496; 
Briggs  V.  Hodgdon,  78  :\Ie.  514,  7  Atl. 
387;  Poillon  r.  Martin,  1  Sandf.  Ch. 
(X.  Y. )  569;  Henry  v.  Raiman,  25 
Pa.  St.  354,  64  Am.  Dec.  703. 

8  Young  V.  Murphy,  120  Wis.  49, 
97  N.  W.  496. 

9  Yeamans   v.  James,  27  Kan.  1 95 ; 


Davis  V.  Stith,  (Ky.)  11  S.  W.  810; 
Roman  v.  Mali,  42  Md.  513;  Vanasse 
V.  Reid,  111  Wis.  303,  87  X.  W.  192. 

10  Jenkins  v.  Einstein,  3  Biss.  128, 
13  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,265;  Kisling  v. 
Shaw,  33  Cal.  425,  91  Am.  Dec.  644; 
Laclede  Bank  c.  Keeler,  109  111.  385; 
Wendell  r.  Van  Rensselaer,  1  Johns. 
Ch.    (X.  Y.)    344. 

11  California. — Learned  v.  Haley, 
34  Cal.  608;  Cousins  r.  Partridge,  79 
Cal.  225,  21  Pac.  745. 

Florida. — Wharton  V.  Hammond, 
20  Fla.  934. 

Illinois. — Laclede  Bank  r.  Keeler, 
109  111.  385;  Morrison  v.  Smith,  130 
111.  304,  23  X.  E.  241;  Donahoe  v. 
Chicago  Cricket  Club,  177  III.  351,  52 
X.  E.  351;  Day  v.  Wright,  233  111. 
218,  84  X.  E.  226. 

Iowa. — Baker  v.  Davenport  First 
Xat.  Bank,  77  la.  615,  42  X.  W.  452; 
Mitchell  V.  Colby,  95  la.  202,  63  X. 
W.   769. 

Kansas. — Yeamans  v.  James,  27 
Kan.   195. 


286 


DEAL1^'GS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§     158 


That  au  attorney  who  touk  an  assignment  from  his  client  for 
money  advanced  would  not  make  an  additional  advance  unless  the 
assignment  was  executed  was  not  an  indication  of  fraud. ^"^ 

§  158.  Assignment  or  Conveyance  of  Subject-Matter  of 
Litigation.  —  In  another  place  in  this  work  a  discussion  will  he 
found  dealing  with  champerty,  maintenance  and  harratry  general- 
ly, and  with  statutory  provisions  which,  in  some  jurisdictions,  have 
for  their  object  the  inhibition  of  attorneys  from  purchasing  claims 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  suit  thereon,  or  the  subject-matter  of 
their  client's  litigation, ^^  Matters  of  this  character,  however,  are 
also  condemned,  within  the  rules  now  under  consideration,  even 
more  emphatically  than  those  heretofore  discussed  in  this  sub- 
division." They  are  deemed  to  be  presumptively  void.^^  It  is  the 
policy  of  the  law  to  especially  scrutinize  gifts,  conveyances,  and 
securities,  given  by  a  client  to  his  attorney,  pending  the  relation, 
when  connected  with  the  subject-matter  of  litigation ;  and  it  will 
not  permit  the  relation,  and  the  confidence  it  implies,  to  be  turned 
to  the  profit  of  the  attorney  at  the  expense  of  the  client.^^  But, 
excepting  where  prohibited  by  statute,^'  an  assignment  or  convey- 
ance, even  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  litigation,  is  not  necessarily 
void.^^     To  sustain  such  a  transaction,  however,  when  attacked  by 


Ketitucky. — Clark  v.  Robertson,  43 
8.  W.  245,  19  Ky.  L.  Rop.  12r)6. 

Marijlaiul. — Roman  v.  Mali,  42  Md. 
513. 

Hiew  York. — Porter  v.  Parmly,  39 
Super.  Ct.  219;  Newberg  v.  Schwab, 
49  Super.  Ct.  232. 

Oregon. — Ah  Foe  r.  Bennett,  35 
Ore.   231,  58  Pac.   508. 

South  Carolina. — Wilson  v.  Can- 
trell,  40  S.  C.  114,  18  S.  E.  517. 

Texas. — Tippett  v.  Brooks,  95  Tex. 
335,  28  Tex.  Civ.  App.  107,  67  S.  W. 
495,  512. 

i2Brackett  v.  Seavey.  131  N.  Y.  S. 
(i(i4. 

13  See  infra,  §  379  et  seq. 

14  \iif^i'rn  r.  H.  E.  Lee  Min.  Co.,  0 
I'cd.    721,    14   Cent.    L.   J.    1U8,  3   Mc- 


Crary  76,  13  Rep.  39;  Rogers  v. 
Marshall,  13  Fed.  59;  Crocheron  i: 
Savage,  75  N.  J.  Eq.  589,  73  Ail.  33, 
23  L.R.A.(N.S.)  679,  reversing  74  N. 
J.  Eq.  629,  70  Atl.  353. 

isstubinger  r.  Frey,  116  Ga.  396, 
42  S.  E.  713;  Ellis  V.  Messervie.  11 
Paige  (N.  Y.)  467;  Howell  r.  Ran- 
som, 11  Paige  (N.  Y.)  538:  Rose  v. 
Mynatt,  7  Yerg.  (Tenn.)  30:  Lane  f. 
Blaek,  21  W.  Va.  617;  Keenan  t: 
Scott,  64  W.  Va.  137,  61  S.  E.  800. 

16  Gray  v.  Emmons,  7  Mich.  533. 

17  West  V.  Raymond.  21   hid.  :!05. 
See  infra,  §§  164-173. 

18  jMonaghan  r.  Downs.  3  Knlp 
(Pa.)  133;  Lewis  v.  Ihoun,  30  \V. 
Va.  1,  14  S.  E.  444. 


§    159]  DEALI^VGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  287 

the  client,  the  attorney  must  show,  as  stated  heretofore,*^  that  it 
was  fair,  honest,  and  equitable;  that  the  client  was  dulv  informed 
and  advised  with  respect  to  the  transaction ;  that  no  advantaiie  wiis 
taken  of  him,  or  fraud  perpetrated  upon  hiui,  and  that  an  adoijuate 
consideration  was  j^aid.^'* 

§  159.  Conveyances  to  Defraud  Creditors.  —  An  attorney 
who  receives  a  conveyance  of  property  from  his  client  for  the  })ur- 
pose  of  aiding  in  defrauding  the  client's  creditors,  stands,  as  other 
such  grantees  do,  merely  in  the  shoes  of  his  grantor  as  against  the 
creditors  defrauded.*  If  the  transaction  is  attacked  by  the  client, 
the  attorney  cannot  set  up,  as  a  defense,  the  fact  that  the  client 
participated  in  the  perpetration  of  the  fraud  and,  therefore,  cannot 
complain  of  the  result.^  Even  where  the  conveyance  by  the  client 
to  his  attorney  is  for  the  declared  purpose  of  hindering  and  delay- 
ing the  creditors  of  the  client,  it  cannot  be  sustained  as  against 
him  by  the  attorney,  or  his  assignee  wdth  notice ;  the  parties  are 
not  regarded  as  being  m  pari  delicto,  and  equity  will  refuse  to  sus- 
tain such  a  conveyance.^  The  law  regards  the  client  as  being 
drawn  into  the  violation  of  its  provisions  through  the  controlling 
influence  of  his  attorney  over  him,  and  for  that  reason  intervenes 
for  his  protection.*  Equity  will  not  tolerate  the  idea  that  an  at- 
torney may  make  use  of  his  peculiar  power  over  his  client  to  pro- 
cure a  contract  which  is  illegal  and  contrary  to  public  policy,  and 

19  See  supra,  §§  152,  157  for  proof  How.  Pr.  .353,  3  Lans.  327.  In  re 
required.  Post,   3   Edw.   365. 

20  United  States. — Rogers   v.  R.   E.  South  Carolina. — Miles  i\  Ervin,  1 
Lee  Min.  Co.,  9  Fed.  721,  14  Cent.  L.  McCord  Eq.  524,  16  Am.  Dec.  G23. 
J.  168,  3  McCrary  76,  13  Rep.  39.  1  Smith  v.  Brittenliam,  109  111.  540; 

(icorgia. — Stubinger    v.    Frey,     116  Summers   v.  Taylor,   80  Ky.  429. 

Ga.  396,  42  S.  E.  713.  2  Lindsley  v.  Caldwell,  234  Mo.  498, 

A'ansas— Yeamans     v.     James,     27  137  S.  W.  983,  37  L.R.A.(N.S.)    161; 

Kan.  195.  Place  v.  Hay  ward,  317  N.  Y.  487,  23 

Illinois. — Elmore    V.    Johnson,    143  N.  E.  25. 

111.    513,   32   N.   E.   413,   36    Am.    St.  3  Lindsley  v.  Caldwell,  234  Mo.  498, 

Rep.    415,    21    L.R.A.    366;    Boyle    V.  137   S.  W.  98.3,  37  L.R.A.(X.S.)    161. 

Read,  138  111.  App.  153.  4Goodenougli    v.    Spencer,    15    Abb. 

Neiv  Jersey. — Crocheron  r.  Savage,  Pr.  N.  S.   (N.  Y.)   248,  2  Thomp.  &  C. 

74  N.  J.  Eq.  629,  70  Atl.  353.  508,  46  How.  Pr.  347. 

Xett)    York. — White    v.    VVhaley,   40 


288  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§    160 

to  then  invoke  the  aid  of  the  hiw  to  enable  him  to  retain  that  which 
he  has  obtained  through  his  fraudulent  artifices.^  If  an  attorney 
will  so  far  forget  or  wilfully  disregard  his  duty  to  the  courts,  to 
his  clients,  and  to  the  public,  as,  for  the  purpose  of  gain  and  profit 
to  himself,  to  induce  by  his  advice  the  commission  of  fraud  by 
those  who  confide  in  him,  he  at  least  should  be  compelled  to  restore 
to  his  victim  the  fruits  of  his  iniquity.  It  would  be  a  reproach  to 
our  judicial  tribunals  should  they  allow  their  officers  thus  to  ac- 
(piire  property  by  a  prostitution  of  the  trust  confided  to  them,  and 
then  to  interpose  the  fraud  as  a  shield  to  protect  them  in  the  pos- 
session and  enjoyment  of  that  property.^  Such  transfers  will  be 
annulled  whenever  that  can  be  done  without  injury  to  an  innocent 
purchaser.'^  But  that  relief  will  not  be  carried  so  far  as  to  disturb 
the  rights  of  an  innocent  third  party  who  in  good  faith  may  have 
been  induced  to  part  with  his  money  or  his  property,  relying  upon 
the  title  which  the  attorney  had  the  apparent  right  and  power  of 
transferring;  the  rule  in  that  case  being  that  where  one  of  two 
innocent  persons  must  suffer  by  the  fraud  or  misconduct  of  a  third, 
the  loss  shall  be  borne  by  him  who  conferred  upon  the  wrongdoer 
the  means  of  deceiving  persons  honestly  dealing  with  him.* 

§  160.  Gifts.  —  The  general  rule  is  that  gifts  made  by  a  client 
to  his  attorney  are  not  necessarily  void,  but  that  they  are  pre- 
sumptively so,  the  burden  of  proof  being  on  the  attorney  to  estab- 
lish their  validity.^  To  establish  a  gift  from  a  client  to  his  attor- 
ney, in  whatever  form  the  question  may  arise,  it  is  incuuibent 
upon  the  latter  to  show  affirmatively  not  only  that  it  was  voluntary, 
l)iit  also  that  it  was  nuide  with  full  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the 
client  of  all  material  facts  known  to  the  attorney,  and  that  it  was 

5  llciTicl<  /•.  I.yncli.  l.')0  111.  2S;!,  :?7  »  Hatch  /'.  llatpli.  !•  \Vs.  Jr.  (  !ui<t.  ) 
X.  K.  221,  uffirminfi  4'.t   111.   ■\\>\>.  <>'>7.  2!l-_' :    Harris   r.   TrcmciihciTe,   15   Vos. 

6  Fonl  /•.  llarriiifitDii.   Mi  N.  \.  2S.').  ,lr.       (Kiiij.)       'M;       .Montesquieu      r. 

7  Condciioii^'li  V.  Spencer,  15  .Xhh.  Sandys,  IS  \'cs.  Jr.  (Eno.)  31:5: 
I'r.  N.  S.  (\.  \.)  24S,  2  T1h)1m|i.  X:  (  .  W  liipplc  r.  IJartoii.  (>3  N.  H.  ()i:3,  3 
r,OS,    Ki    ll(,\v.   I'r.  ;!47.  .\tl.   !t22:    in   re  Spaiks,  (i;}   X.   J.    Iv]. 

8  (;<),, .Iciiiiii;,^!  r.  Spciiccr,  l.">  .Mil).  2J_'.  51  .\ti.  llS;  Xcshit  r.  Liicknnin, 
I'r.  X.  S.  (X.  \.}  2  IS,  2  I  Imiiii).  &  C.  :!4  X.  \.  KiT:  Planters'  P.ank  /•. 
5()S     It;  How.  I'l.  .'!17.  lloinlieri^'er,  4  I'oldw.    (Tenn.)    5(57. 


§    IGl]         DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AT7D    CLIENT. 


289 


not  brought  about  by  any  niidue  influence,"  either  actively  exerted 
or  arising  from  the  relation  between  them;^^  the  general  char- 
acter of  the  proof  required  being  the  same  as  that  which  is  neces- 
sary to  sustain  other  conveyances  between  attorney  and  counsel, 
and  heretofore  considered. ^'^  The  reason  for  this  ride  is  that  the 
person  receiving  the  benefit  has  actively  participated  in  the  transac- 
tion, as  a  party  thereto,  and  the  explanation  required  is  very  nat- 
urally within  his  knowledge  and  power. ^^  Even  without  improper 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  attorney,  the  law  looks  with  great  dis- 
favor upon  transactions  of  this  character;  and,  as  a  rule,  their  va- 
lidity will  only  be  recognized  to  the  extent  of  allowing  the  attorney 
to  retain  them  as  security  for  the  payment  to  him  of  reasonable 
compensation  for  any  professional  services  he  may  have  rendered 
the  donor. ^* 

§  161.  Wills.  —  The  rule  that  prevails  as  to  transactions  in- 
ter vivos  between  client  and  attorney  does  not  apply  to  a  will  made 
by  the  client  in  favor  of  his  attorney.^^  Undue  influence  is  not 
generally  presumed  from  the  mere  relation  itself,^^  or  from  the  fact 


lOWalmcsloy  v.  Booth,  2  Atk. 
(Eng.)  20;  Oldham  v.  Hand,  2  Ves. 
(Eng.)  2.jD;  Davis  r.  Walker,  5  Out. 
L.  Rop.  17;!;  rleiinings  V.  McConnel, 
]7  111.  148;  Whipple  v.  Barton,  63 
X.  H.  613,  3  Atl.  922;  In  re  Green 
field,  14  Pa.  St.  489. 

11  Wliipple  /•.  Barton,  03  N.  H.  613, 
3  Atl.  922. 

12  See  supra,  §§  152,  157. 

13  In  re  Hohnan,  42  Ore.  358,  70 
Pac.  90S. 

14  Morgan  r.  Minett,  6  Ch.  D. 
(Eng.)  638:  O'Brien  v.  Lewis,  9  Jur. 
N.  S.  (Eng.)  528,  11  W.  R.  318,  8  L. 
T.  N.  S.  179;  Liles  r.  Terry,  [1895]  2 
Q.  B.  (Eng.)  679;  Trusts,  etc.,  Co.  V. 
Hart,  32  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  553;  Davis  r. 
Walker,  5  Ont.  L.  Rep.  173;  Berrien 
V.  McLane,  Hoflm.  (X.  Y.)  421; 
Planters'  Bank  v.  Hornberger,  4 
Coldw.    (Tenn.)    567. 

In  Middleton  r.  Welles,  4  Bro.  P.  C. 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 19. 


(Eng.)  245,  it  was  held  that  "it  is 
an  established  rule  in  courts  of  equity 
that  no  gift  or  gratuity  to  an  attor- 
ney, beyond  his  fair  professional  de- 
mands, made  during  tiie  time  that  he 
continues  to  conduct  or  manage  the 
affairs  of  the  donor,  and  more  espe- 
cially if  such  gift  or  gratuity  arises 
immediately  out  of  the  subject  then 
under  the  attorney's  management, 
will  lie  sustained." 

15  In  re  Sparks,  63  X.  J.  Eq.  246, 
51  Atl.  118;  In  re  Suydam,  84  Hun 
514,  32  X.  Y.  S.  449. 

16  In  re  Sparks,  63  X.  J.  Eq.  240.  5 1 
Atl.  118;  Wilson  c.  Moran,  3  Bradf. 
(X^.  Y.)  172;  In  re  Smith,  95  X.  Y. 
523;  Matter  of  Suydam,  84  Ilun  514, 
32  X.  Y.  S.  449;  Haughian  V.  Conlan, 
86  App.  Div.  290,  83  X.  Y.  S.  830; 
In  re  Hohnan,  42  Ore.  345,  70  Pac. 
908;  Patterson  r.  Lamb,  21  Tex.  Civ. 
App.  512,  52  S.  W.  98. 


290  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY  AND   CLIENT.  [§    161 

that  the  attoriiey  prepared  the  will;  ^'  but  these  facts  call  for  cir- 
cumspection, and,  coupled  with  other  circumstances,  may  create 
a  presumption  of  undue  influence."  Thus  the  entire  absence  of 
independent  advice,  or  of  instructions  as  to  how  the  will  should  be 
prepared,  or  of  knowledge  of  its  contents,  except  so  far  as  the  in- 
strument itself,  or  some  part  of  it,  was  read  over  in  the  presence 
of  the  testator  before  its  execution,  are  facts  which  are  most  im- 
portant in  considering  tlie  efl^ect  to  be  given  to  the  proof  of  the 
actual  execution  of  the  instrument,  and,  together  with  other  cir- 
cumstances, may  bring  the  case  within  that  class  where  there  is 
imposed  upon  the  proponent  the  burden  of  proving  by  evidence, 
other  than  that  of  the  formal  execution  of  the  will,  that  it  was  the 
free,  untrammeled,  and  intelligent  expression  of  the  wishes  and 
intention  of  the  decedent.^^  The  rule  that  undue  influence  in  re- 
spect to  a  legacy  is  to  be  presumed  when  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  subsists  between  the  testator  and  the  legatee,  and  the 
will  is  drawn  by  the  latter,  has  been  recognized  in  some  cases  ^° 
which  also  hold  that  such  presumption  is  one  of  fact  and  may  be 
rebutted.^  Fraud  may,  of  course,  be  perpetrated  in  connection 
with  the  preparation  of  wills  as  well  as  other  transactions,  and 
will  receive  a  like  condemnation.^  Thus  where  an  attorney  secures 
a  devise  on  the  pretense  that  he  will  make  use  of  it  for  another, 
while  intending  nevertheless  to  appropriate  it  to  his  own  use,  he 

17  White   V.  Cole,    (Ky.)    47    S.   W.  ence  of  the  relation,  justify  suspicion 

759;  In  re  Wells,  96  Me.  165,  51  All.  and  the  requirement  from  the  legatee 

868;   Clarke  v.  Schell,  84  Hun  28,  31  of  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  op- 

X.  Y.  S.  1053;  Matter  of  Suydam,  84  portunity  was  not  embraced  and  the 

Hun  514,  32  X.  Y.  S.  449,  affirmed  152  influence  was  not  exerted." 

N.  Y.  639,  46  N.  E.   1152;   Haughian  18  Xowhouse    r.    Godwin.    17    Barb. 

r.  Conlan,  86  App.  Div.  290,  83  X.  Y.  (X.  Y.)    23G;   In  re  Holman,  42  Ore. 

S.   830;    Matter  of   Murphy,  28  :Mise.  345,  70  Pac.  908. 

650.  59  X.  \.  S.  1078.  ^^  In  I'e  Rintelen,  77  App.  Div.  142, 

I'.iil    sec   in    St.    Leger'8   Appeal,   34  78  X.  Y.  S.   1092. 

Conn.  434,  91   Am.  Dec.  735,  where  the  20  St.   Leger's  Appeal  from    I'rohate, 

court  Hays:      "Drawing   the   will    jjrc-  34  Conn.  434,  91  Am.  Dec.  735. 

Hcnts    an    opportunity    and   a    tcmjjta-  ^  ^t.   Leger's  Appeal  from  Probate, 

lion  which,  together  with  the  itersonal  34  Conn.  434.  91  Am.  Dec.  735. 

fricndsiiip    and    confidence    and    inllii-  2  See  s»/)/o,  §  156. 


§     ]G2]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  291 

is  guilty  of  a  gross  fraud  and  breach  of  confidence,  and  will  not 
be  allowed  to  retain  the  fruits  thereof.' 

§  162.  Contracts  to  Indemnify  Client.  —  Contracts  whereby 
an  attorney  agrees  to  indemnify  his  client  from  loss  in  pending 
litigation,  which  the  attorney  has  been  retained  to  conduct,  arc 
void,*  not  only  because  they  are  without  consideration,*  but  be- 
cause they  are  also  in  contravention  of  public  policy.^  The  con- 
tract is  equally  vicious  whether  in  the  hands  of  the  client  or  the 
attorney,  and  in  neither  can  it  be  enforced.  The  client  is  not  an 
innocent  party ;  he  has  no  right  in  law  or  morals  to  attempt,  by 
contracts  of  this  kind,  to  pervert  the  course  of  justice  by  laying 
before  his  attorneys  temptations  and  incentives  for  unprofessional 
and  unlawful  conduct,  and,  therefore,  is  not  entitled  to  the  favor 
of  the  court.''^  Even  conceding  such  a  contract  to  be  valid,  it  ex- 
tends only  to  such  liabilities  as  the  law  would  recognize  or  enforce.* 
Thus  a  bond  executed  by  an  attorney  undertaking  that  he  would 
faithfully  perform  his  duties,  adds  nothing  to  his  legal  liability.^ 
But  it  has  been  said  that  the  promise  of  an  attorney,  who  has  re- 
ceived a  debt  for  collection,  to  pay  the  amount  of  the  debt  upon 
his  ultimate  failure  to  collect  it,  may  be  supported  by  a  sufficient 
consideration,  and,  if  so,  is  valid. 


10 


3  Hooker  v.  Axford,  ;^3  Midi.  453.  8  Lindsey    r.   Jones,    23   Ala.   83.'). 

4Mitcliell   V.   Bell,    1    N.   C.  244,    2  9  Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc,  l:  Ducker, 

Am.   Dee.   627.  Ill  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  671,  23  Ky.  L. 

5  Such  a  promise  is  altogether  with-  Rep.  1073. 

out  prejudice  to  the  client  or  benelit  10  Morrill  v.  Graham,  27  Tex.  646, 
to  the  attorney — the  former  would  wherein  it  was  said  tliat  such  a  con- 
have  been  precisely  in  the  same  situa-  tract  would  be  valid  if  the  client 
tion  if  the  promise  had  never  been  should  agree  not  to  witlidraw  the 
made — tlie  latter  received  no  new  business  from  the  hands  of  the  attor- 
confidence  or  regard  for  making  it.  ney  or  consent  on  the  faith  of  such 
It  is  Avithin  the  idea  of  nudum  promise  to  waive  a  proceeding  wliich 
parfiim  most  completely.  Mitcliell  v.  otherwise  he  would  have  taken,  and 
J'ell.  1  N.  C.  157.  by   reason    of   which    his   debt   would 

6  Adye  ;•.  Hanna,  47  la.  264,  29  Am.  have  been   secured. 
Rep.  484. 

7  Adye  v.  Hanna,  47  la.  264,  29  Am. 
Rep.  484. 


292 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT,  [§     KJ-'J 


§  163.  Laches.  — In  order  to  recover  from  an  attorney  prop- 
erty, or  the  proceeds  thereof,  which  has  been  conveyed  to  him  by 
his  client  during  the  continuance  of  the  professional  relationship, 
or  to  have  such  conveyance  annulled  or  set  aside,  proceedings  for 
that  purpose  should  be  instituted  within  a  reasonable  time.^^  What 
is  a  reasonable  time  cannot  well  be  defined,  but  must  be  left,  in 
larffe  measure,  to  the  determination  of  the  court  in  view  of  the 
facts  presented.  Equity  does  not  always  follow  the  period  of  limi- 
tation fixed  by  statute  and  enforced  in  courts  of  law.'^^  Parties 
may  be  required  to  assert  their  rights  within  a  shorter  time  in 
states  where  the  values  of  real  estate  increase  rapidly,  and  greater 
temptations  are  thereby  afforded  for  speculative  litigation.^'  Such 
transactions  cannot  be  avoided  where  they  have  been  deliberately 
ratified  or  confirmed  on  full  information.^^  Confirmation  may  be 
evidenced  by  long  acquiescence,  as  by  standing  and  allowing  the 
purchaser  to  lay  out  money  in  the  firm  belief  that  his  title  would 
not  be  contested. ^^  But  the  party  who  is  entitled  to  have  the  trans- 
action set  aside  cannot  be  charged  with  delay,  or  with  acquiescence, 
or  confirmation,  unless  he  had  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  and 
perfect  freedom  of  action.^®  iVcts  which  might  appear  to  be  acts 
of  acquiescence  will  not  be  held  to  be  such,  if  the  client  is  ignorant 
of  the  circumstances,  or  under  the  control  of  the  original  inflnence, 
or  otherwise  so  situated  as  not  to  be  free  to  enforce  his  rights.^'' 


11  Elmore  v.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.R.A.  366;  Wills  v.  Wood,  28  Kan. 
400;    Smith    r.  Thompson,   7    B.  Mon. 

(Ky.)  310;  Porter  v.  Howes,  202 
Mass.  54,  S8  N.  E.  445;  Lewis  r. 
Broun,  3(i  W.  Va.  1,  14  S.  E.  444. 

Wliile  it  is  doubtless  true  that  an 
attorney,  to  uphold  a  purchase  from 
Iiis  client,  must  prove  the  transaction 
fair,  yet  that  rule  does  not  exclude 
llic  wciplit,  which  is  to  be  given  to 
presumptions  aiisiri;^  from  lon<(  ac- 
quiescence and  death  of  parties  and 
witnesses.  Wills  V.  Wood,  28  Kan. 
■100. 

12  i;iMiore   r.   Joiinson,    14.".    ill.    51:!, 


32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Eep.  401,  21 
L.R.A.   366. 

13  Elmore  r.  Johnson,  143  111.  513. 
32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.R.A.  366;  Smith  r.  Thompson.  7  B. 
Won.    (Ky.)    310. 

14  Lewis  V.  Broun,  36  W.  Va.  1,  14 
S.  E.  444. 

15  Elmore  r.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.R.A.  366. 

16  Elmore  r.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  N.  E.  413,  36  An.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.ll.A.  366;  Sutlierland  r.  Reeve.  151 
111.  384,  38  N.  E.  130. 

17  Elmore  r.  -Jolmson,  143  111.  513, 
32  \.  K.  413,  30  Am.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.K.A.   -.'AW,. 


§     IGi]         DEALINGS    BETAVEEN    ATTORNEV    AJS!D    CLIEIS'T. 


293 


The  defense  of  laches  is  not  usnally  regarded  with  favor.^'  If  the 
property  has  passed  into  the  luuuls  of  a  snbseqnent  purchaser  for 
vahie,  and  without  notice,  the  sale  can  no  longer  be  set  aside.  In 
that  case  the  client's  remedy  is  against  the  attorney.^' 

Acquiring  Adverse  Interest  in  Subject-Matter  of  Employment. 

§  164.  General  Rule.  —  It  is  well  settled  that  while  the  rela- 
tion of  attorney  and  client  continues,  the  attorney  cannot,  as  against 
his  client,  acquire  any  beneficial  interest  in,  or  title  to,  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  litigation  antagonistic  to  that  of  his  client,^"  and  if 
he  have  such  an  interest  he  must  disclose  it ;  ^  nor  can  an  attorney 
make  use  of  any  knowledge  acquired  by  him  through  his  profes- 
sional relations  with  his  client,  so  as  to  promote  his  own  advantage. 


18  Elmore  c.  Johnson,  143  111.  513, 
32  X.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep.  401,  21 
L.R.A.  366. 

19  Hawley  v.  Cramer,  4  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)  717;  Lewis  c.  Broun,  36  W.  Va. 
1,  14  S.  E.  444. 

SO  England.— liaW  r.  Hallet,  1  Cox 
Ch.  134;  Ex  p.  Hughes,  6  Ves.  Jr. 
617;  Holman  r.  Loynes,  4  De  G.  M. 
&  G.  270;  Carter  r.  Palmer,  8  CI.  & 
F.  657. 

United  States. — Marsh  v.  Whit- 
more,  21  Wall.  178,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
482;  Byers  v.  Surget,  19  How.  303,  15 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  670;  Garinger  v. 
Palmer,  126  Fed.  906,  61  C.  C.  A.  436. 

California. — Sutliflf  V.  Clunie,  37 
Pac.  224. 

Colorado. — Owers  c.  Olatlie  Silver 
Min.  Co.  6  Colo.  App.  1,  39  Pac.  080. 

Georgia. — Larey  r.  Baker,  86  Ga. 
468,  12  S.  E.  684;  Crayton  r.  Spul- 
lock,  87  Ga.  326,  13  S.  E.  561. 

Illinois. — McDowell  r.  Milroy,  69 
111.  498;  Sutherland  c.  Reeve,  41  111. 
App.  295,  151  111.  384,  38  N.  E.  130. 

Louisiana. — Hoss's  Succession,  42 
La.  Ann.  1022,  8  So.  833. 


Maine. — Briggs  v.  Ilodgdon,  78  ISle. 
514,  7  Atl.  387;  Hill  v.  Coburn,  105 
Me.  437,   75  Atl.  67. 

Michigan. — Gott  /;.  Brigham,  41 
Midi.  227,  2  N.  W.  5. 

Mississippi. — Cameron  r.  Lewis,  56 
Miss.  76. 

Blissouri. — Eoff  r.  Irvine,  108  Mo. 
378,  18  S.  W.  907,  32  Am.  St.  Rep. 
609. 

Neir  York. — Giddings  r.  Eastman, 
5  Paige  561 ;  Hatch  r.  Fogerty,  40 
How^  Pr.  492,  10  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  147: 
Case  v.  Carroll,  35  N.  Y.  385. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Gooch  v.  Peebles, 
105  N.  C.  411,  11  S.  E.  415. 

\orth  Dakota. — Y^'erkes  v.  Crum,  2 
X.  D.  72,  49  X.  W.  422. 

Pennsylvania. — ^Galbraith  v.  Elder, 
8  Watts  81 ;  Cleavinger  v.  Reimar,  3 
W.  &  S.  486;  Hockenbury  v.  Carlisle, 
5  W.  &  S.  348 ;  Henry  f.  Raiman,  25 
Pa.  St.  354.  64  Am.  Dec.  703;  Smith 
V.  Brotherline,  62  Pa.  St.  461. 

Vermont. — Davis  /;.  Smith,  43  Yt. 
269. 

1  Lazarus  r.  Friedrichs,  125  La. 
619,  51  So.  663. 


294 


DEALI^^GS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    164 


but  in  every  such  ease  he  will  be  conchisively  presumed  to  be  acting 
for  his  client's  benefit.^  Transactions  of  this  character  are  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  the  ]irofessional  duties  of  an  attorney  at 
law,^  and  the  transaction  may,  at  the  election  of  his  client,  be  set 
aside,*  or  impressed  with  a  trust  in  favor  of  his  client,^  even  though 
the  client  was  not  injured,®  unless  he  establishes  the  fairness  of  the 
transaction  within  the  rule  heretofore  stated  in  another  connec- 
tion.''^ Indeed,  it  has  been  said  that  to  insure  the  utmost  fidelity, 
an  attorney  should  forever  after  be  barred,  without  his  client's 
consent,  from  making  private  gain  out  of  a  sale  which  he  was  once 


^England. — Taylor  v.  Blacklow,  3 
Bing.  N.  Cas.  235,  32  E.  C.  L.  ]00. 

California. — Fisher  v.  Mclnerney, 
137  Cal.  28,  69  Pac.  622,  907,  92  Am. 
St.  Rep.  68;  SutlifT  v.  Clunie,  37  Pac. 
224. 

Colorado.— OwQYS  f.  Olatlie  Silver 
Min.  Co.,  6  Colo.  App.  1,  39  Pac.  980. 

Georgia. — Larey  v.  Baker,  86  Ga. 
468,  12  S.  E.  684. 

Illinois. — Sutherland  r.  Reeve,  151 
111.  384,  38  N.  E.  130;  Patterson  r. 
Northern  Trust  Co.,  132  111.  App.  208, 
affirmed  230  111.  334,  82  N.  E.  837, 
231  111.  22,  82  N.  E.  840,  121  Am.  St. 
Rep.  299;  Boyle  v.  Read,  138  111. 
App.  153. 

h'anna.s. — Cuiuiingham  v.  Jones,  37 
Kan.  477,  15  Pac.  572,  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
257. 

Louisiana. — Lacey  v.  Waples,  28 
La.  Ann.   158. 

Michigan. — Cott  r.  15rii;liam,  41 
Mich.  227,  2  N.  W.  .l. 

Minnesota. — Sand  ford  r.  Flint,  108 
.Minn.  399,  122  X.  \V.  315. 

Missouri. — Davis  r.  Kline,  9(i  Mo. 
401,  9  S.  W.  724,  2  L.R.A.  78. 

\eii:  York. — Reif,'al  /■.  Wood,  1 
.Tolins.  Cli.  402;  Hatcli  /'.  Foj,'erty,  40 
lluw.   Pr.  492,  10  Ahb.   I'r.  N.  S.  147. 


South  Carolina. — Taylor  v.  Barker, 
30  S.  C.  238,  9  S.  E.  115. 

Vermont. — Wheeler  u.  Willard,  44 
Vt.  640. 

3  Arkansas. — Wriglit  r.  Walker,  30 
Ark.  44. 

Colorado. — Owers  r.  Olathe  Silver 
Min.  Co.,  6  Colo.  App.  1,  39  Pac.  980. 

Kansas. — Cunningham  r.  Jones,  37 
Kan.  477,  15  Pac.  572,  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
257. 

Kentucky. — Handlin  r.  Davis,  81 
Ky.  34. 

Minnesota. — Sandford  r.  Flint,  108 
Minn.  399,  122  N.  W.  315. 

IS/ew  York. — Howell  /".  Baker,  4 
Johns.  Ch.  118;  Bush  r.  Halsted,  121 
App.  Div.  538,  106  X.  Y.  S.  133. 

Pennsylvania.- — Klliott  v.  Tyler,  6 
Atl.  917. 

4  Baker  r.  Humphrey,  101  U.  S. 
494,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  lOOo;  Levara 
/•.  McX^eny,  5  Neb.  (unoflicial)  Rep. 
318,  98  N.  W.  679,  modified  73  Neb. 
414,  102  N.  W.  1042. 

5  Nichols  V.  Riley,  118  App.  Div. 
404,  103  N.  Y.  S.  554.  And  see  infra, 
§    169. 

6  Hare  r.  De  Young,  39  Misc.  366, 
79  X.  Y.  S.  868. 

1  See  supra,  §  152. 


§§    165,    166]     DEALINGS     BETWEEN  ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.      295 

employed  to  prevent.'  An  attorney  who  realizes  a  fund  upon  a 
judgment  in  his  own  favor  out  of  his  client's  debtor,  is  not,  how- 
ever, bound  to  apply  the  fund  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  client's 
debt.^ 

§  165.  To  Whom  Rule  Applies.  — The  rule  stated  above  ap- 
plies to  every  one  who  acts  for  another  in  the  capacity  of  attorney, 
and  acquires  by  his  relationship  the  influence  ordinarily  exerted 
by  an  attorney  over  his  client.^"  Thus  a  party  who  acts  as  con- 
fidential adviser,  in  a  suit  before  a  magistrate,  fills  the  place  of  an 
attorney  so  far  as  to  bring  him  within  the  rule.^^  So,  also,  the  rule 
applies  to  a  managing  clerk  in  a  solicitor's  office,  who,  in  that 
capacity,  has  acquired  the  confidence  of  the  client,  and  who  deals 
with  the  client  in  a  matter  with  which  he  became  acquainted  as 
such  clerk.^^  But  one  retained  as  attorney  for  an  assignee  in  trust 
for  the  benefit  of  creditors,  occupies  no  such  fiduciary  relation 
towards  the  assigned  estate  as  renders  him  incompetent  to  become 
the  purchaser  of  the  promissory  note  of  the  assignor,  and  to  claim 
payment  thereof  out  of  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  the  assigTiee.'^' 

§   166.  Purchase    at    Judicial,    or    Other    Public    Sale.  — 

Public  policy  denuinds  that  there  should  be  no  temptation  on  the 
part  of  one  occupying  the  relation  of  attorney  to  make  private  gain 
out  of  the  subject-matter  of  his  professional  employment.  There- 
fore, it  is  a  well-settled  general  rule  that  an  attorney  is,  by  reason 
of  the  confidential  relation  existing  between  himself  and  his  clients, 
incapacitated  to  buy  and  hold  property  sold  at  a  judicial,  or  other 
public  sale,  in  which  his  client,  as  such,  is  interested,  where  such 
purchase  would  result  in  injury  or  disadvantage  to  his  client.^* 

8  Nichols    r.   Kiley,    118    App.    Div.       jury.      O'Donnell     v.    Breck,     7     Pa. 
404,  103  N.  Y.  S.  554.  Super.  Ct.  24.     And  see  also  supia,  § 

9  Cox  V.  Sullivan,  7  Ga.  144,  50  Am.       152;  and  infra,  §  172. 

Dec.  386.  ii  Buffalow   v.    Buflalow,   22    N.   C. 

lOSlieehan   v.  Erbe.   103  App.   Div.  241. 

7,  92  N.  Y.  S.  862;  Smith  v.  Brother-  12  Poillon   v.   Martin.    1    Sandf.   Cli. 

line,  62  Pa.  St.  461.     See  also  Jinks  (N.  Y.)   569. 

V.  Moppin,    (Tex.)    80  S.  W.   390.  13  Sallade's  Appeal,  36  Pa.  St.  429. 

Question  wliether  one  occupied  rela-  i*  Enrjlnnd. — Hall  r.  Hallett,  1  Cox 

tion  of  attorney  or  of  broker  held  for  Ch.    134;    Sidnv    v.   Ranker,    12    Sim. 


296 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    10(5 


This  is  in  accordance  with  the  rules  heretofore  announced  witli 


118;  Ex  p.  James,  8  Ves.  Jr.  337; 
Xelthorpc  r.  Pennyman.  14  Ves.  Jr. 
517. 

United  States. — Stockton  r.  Ford, 
11  How.  232,  13  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  676; 
Byers  v.  Surget,  19  How.  303,  15  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  670;  Manning  v.  Hayden,  5 
Sawy.  360,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,043; 
Pacific  R.  Co.  V.  Ketchum,  101  U.  S. 
289,  25  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    932. 

Alabama. — Pearce  r.  Gamble,  72 
Ala.  341.  See  also  Phillips  v.  Benson, 
82  Ala.  500,  2  So.  93. 

Arkansas. — Wright  v.  Walker,  30 
Ark.  44,  purchase  at  tax  sale. 

California. — Fisher  V.  Mclnerney, 
137  Cal.  28,  69  Pac.  622,  907,  92  Am. 
St.  Rep.  68. 

Colorado. — Owcrs  r.  Olatlie  Silver 
:\Iin.  Co.,  6  Colo.  App.  1,  39  Pac.  980. 

Georgia. — Crayton  v.  Spiillock,  87 
Ga.  326,  13  S.  E.  561;  Kreitzer  ('. 
Crovatt,  94  Ga.  694,  21  S.  E.  585. 

Illinois. — Moore  V.  Bracken,  27  111. 
23:   Zeigler  v.  Hughes,  55  HI.  288. 

loiixi. — Harper  c.  Perry,  28  la.  57; 
Howard  r.  Keily,  137  la.  76,  114  N. 
W.  544,  126  Am.  St.  Rep.  274. 

Kansas. — Cunningham  v.  Jones,  37 
Kan.  477,  15  Pac.  572,  1  Am.  St.  Rep. 
257. 

Kentucky. — Scott  (".  Wicklifl'e,  1  B. 
Mon.  353;  Busey  v.  Hardin,  2  B.  Mon. 
407;  Smith  /■.  Tlioinpson,  7  B.  Mon. 
305;  Forma  11  r.  Hunt,  3  Dana  617; 
Howell  /•.  McCrccry,  7  Dana  388; 
IMiiJlips  (■.  Pliillips,'sO  S.  W.  826,  26 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  145,  rehearing  denied  81 
S.  W.  689,  26  Ky.  L.  Rep.  415;  Ma- 
loiic  r.  Lehus,  96  S.  W.  519.  See 
Salter  r.  Dunn,  1  Bush  311:  Diivall 
r.  Waggciicr,  2  B.  Mon.  183. 

LouiHUinn. —  Hailshack  c.  Leonard, 
1)8  La.  916,  43  So.  .548. 


Michigan. — Taylor  r.  Young,  56 
.Mich.  285,  22  N.  W.  799;  Culver  r. 
Nester,  116  Mich.  191,  74  N.  W.  532; 
Boardman  i.  Boozewinkel,  121  Mich. 
320,  SO  N.  W.  37. 

M  ississi2)pi. — Johnson  c.  Outlaw, 
56  Miss.  541;  Sullivan  v.  Walker,  12 
So.  250. 

Missouri. — Warren  v.  Hawkins,  49 
Mo.  137;  Ward  r.  Brown,  87  Mo.  468; 
Davis  V.  Kline,  96  Mo.  401,  9  S.  W. 
724,  2  L.R.A.  78;  Eoff  v.  Irvine,  108 
Mo.  378,  18  S.  W.  907,  32  Am.  St. 
Rep.  609;  Bucher  r.  Hohl,  199  Mo. 
320,  97  S.  W.  922,  116  Am.  St.  Rep. 
492;  Burke  v.  Daly,  14  Mo.  App.  542; 
Edwards  r.  Gottschalk,  25  Mo.  Apj). 
549;  Wilber  r.  Robinson,  29  Mo.  App. 
157;  Aultman,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Loring,  76 
Mo.  App.  66. 

Nebraska. — Olson  v.  Lamb,  56  Neb. 
104,  76  N.  W.  433,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
670. 

Nciv  York. — In  re  Friedman,  27 
Hun  301 ;  Johnstone  v.  O'Connor,  21 
App.  Div.  77,  47  N.  Y.  S.  425, 
affirmed  162  N.  Y.  639,  57  N.  E.  1113; 
Bush  V.  Halsted,  121  App.  Div.  538, 
106  N.  Y.  S.  133;   Hawley  v.  Cramer. 

4  Cow.  717;  Beardsley  r.  Root,  11 
Johns.  464,  6  Am.  Dec.  386;  Howell 
r.  Baker,  4  Johns.  Ch.  118;  Giddings 
r.  Eastman,  5  Paige  561 ;  Wambaugh 
r.  Gates,  8  N.  Y.  138;  Case  v.  Carroll, 
35  N.  Y.  385;  O'Donncll  r.  Lindsay, 
39   Super    Ct.   523. 

North  Carolina. — Gooch  r.  Peebles, 
105  N.  C.  411.  11  S.  E.  415. 

Pennsylvdnia. — Leisenring  v.  Black, 

5  Watts  303,  30  Am.  Dec.  322;  Devin- 
ncy  '".  Xorris,  8  Watts,  314;  Downey 
/•.  (;crrard,  3  Grant  Cas.  64;  Barrett 
r.  I!anil)cr.  9  Phila.  202,  31  Leg.  Int.. 
164;  Elliott  V.  Tyler,  6  Atl.  917. 


§    166]         DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  297 

respect  to  dealings  between  attorney  and  client,^*  to  the  effect  that 
when  an  attorney  is  intrusted  with  litigation,  the  conduct  of  pro- 
ceedings, or  the  management  of  any  business,  in  which  he  is  \nider 
the  slightest  obligatidn  to  look  after  and  protect  the  interests  of 
others,  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  derive  therefrom  any  personal 
benefit  which  conflicts  in  the  least  degree  with  that  obligation  and 
the  protection  of  those  interests. ^^  An  attorney  purchasing  in  liis 
own  name  at  his  client's  execution  sale,  holds  the  property  subject 
to  the  election  of  the  client  to  take  it  on  being  fully  informed  of 
the  facts.^''^  So  also  where  the  attorne}'  procures  a  third  person  to 
buy  for  him,  or  in  whose  purchase  the  attorney  is  interested.^®  The 
fact  that  a  solicitor  has  a  personal  separate  interest  in  the  sale, 
does  not  estop  his  client  from  asserting  its  invalidity. ^^  If  it  is 
necessary  for  an  attorney  to  bid  at  such  judicial  sales  to  protect  his 
own  interests,  he  should  obtain  an  order  of  court  granting  him  per- 
mission to  do  so,  and  such  order  must  be  made  on  personal  notice 
to  his  clients ;  or  he  may  withdraw,  before  the  sale,  as  counsel  in 
the  case.^°  Purchases  of  the  character  under  consideration  are  at 
all  times  regarded  with  disfavor  by  the  courts^  and  where  they  are 
accompanied  by  the  fact  that  an  inadequate  price  was  paid  by  the 
attorney,  it  will  require  but  slight  evidence  to  warrant  the  setting 
aside  of  the  sale  either  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  or  as  being  in  con- 
travention of  public  policy.^     In  all  cases  of  this  character  if  the 

Texas. — Thomas     i\     Morrison,     y2  (Kv.)     30.1;     Aultinan,    etc.,     Co.    v. 

Tex.    329,    48    S.    W.  500,    modifijwg  Loring,    76    Mo.    App.    06;    Olson    v. 

46  S.  W.  46.  Lamb,  56  Xeb.  IM,  76  N.  W.  433,  71 

Vermont. — AVheeler    v.    Willard,    44  Am.  St.  Rep.  670.     And  see,  infra,  § 

Vt.  640.  169. 

^^'asJlington. — Gafl'ney   v.  .Jones,   18  18  Davis    v.   Kline,    96    Mo.    401,    9 

Wash.   311,   51   Pac.   461.  S.  W.  724,  2  L.R.A.  78:   Bush  ;;.  Hal- 

West        Virginia. — Newcomb        V.  sted,  121   App.  Div.  538.  106  X.  Y.  S. 

Brooks,  16  W.  Va.  32.  133;    Miles    v.    Ervin,    1    McCord    Eq. 

Wisconsin. — In    re    Taylor    Orphan  (S.  C.)    524,   16  Am.  Dec.  623;    Xew- 

Asylum,  36  Wis.  534;   Ellis  v.  Allen,  comb  v.  Brooks,  16  ^\'.  Va.  32. 

99  Wis.  598,  74  X.  W.  537,  75  N.  W.  19  Wambaugh     r.    Gates,    8    X.    Y. 

949.  138. 

15  See  s»pra,  §§  152-163.  20  Johnstone    r.   O'Connor.    21    App. 

leCrayton  r.  Spullock,  87  Ga.  326,  Div.  77,  47  X.  Y.  S.  425,  affirmed  162 

13   S.  E.  561.  X.  Y.  639,  57  N.  E.  1113. 

17  Smith    V.    Tliompson,    7    B.    Mon.  l  Busey  f.  Hardin,  2  B.  ^lon.   (Ky.) 


298 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTOENEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    166 


transaction  is  attacked  by  the  client,  the  attorney  has  the  burden 
of  showing  that  he  acted  honestly,  fairly  and  equitably  with  the 
client,  and  that  the  price  was  adequate ;  ^  the  rule  in  this  respect 
being  the  same  as  that  heretofore  stated  in  another  connection.'  If, 
however,  the  fairness  of  the  purchase  is  so  established,  it  will  be 
upheld.'*  The  relation  of  attorney  and  client  does  not,  of  itself, 
authorize  an  attorney  to  purchase  at  a  judicial  sale  for  his  client;  ^ 
and  if  he  does  so,  and  any  loss  occurs  by  reason  of  the  transaction, 
he  cannot  shift  the  burden  of  the  loss  upon  his  client  after  dis- 
covering that  his  purchase  is  not  profitable.^     But,  if  authorized 


407;  Smith  v.  Thompson,  7  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)  305;  Forman  v.  Hunt,  3  Dana 
(Ky.)  63  7;  Howell  v.  McCreery,  7 
Dana  (Ky.)  3S8;  Howell  i:  Baker,  4 
Johns.  Cli.  (X.  Y.)  118;  Leisenring 
r.  Black,  5  Watts  (Pa.)  303,  30  Am. 
Dee.  322. 

2Saveiy  /-.  Sypher,  6  Wall.  157.  18 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  822:  Manning  v.  Hay- 
den,  5  Sawy.  360,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,043;  Mansfield  v.  Wallace,  217  111. 
610,  75  N.  E.  682;  Reickhoff  r. 
Brecht,  51  la.  633,  2  N.  W.  522; 
Howell  V.  Ransom,  11  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
540. 

3  See  supra,  §  152. 

4  United  States.— Tlw  Ruby,  38 
Fed.  622. 

Califoinia. — Fisher  v.  Mclnerney, 
137  Cal.  28,  60  Pac.  622,  007,  02  Am. 
St.  Rep.  68. 

Illinois. — Hess  (\  Voss,  52  111.  472; 
llerr  v.  Payson,  157  111.  244,  41  N.  E. 
7.32. 

foivu. — Cavcnder  r.  Smith,  1  la. 
.300;  Pago  v.  Stubbs,  39  la.  537; 
Baker  r.  Davenport  First  Nat.  Bank, 
77  la.  615,  42  N.  W.  452. 

Louisiana. —  Hyanis  /■.  Ilrrndon,  36 
La.  Ann.  870. 

Kaiu^as. — CaMwcll  r.  15igger,  70 
Kan.   40.    90    Pac.    1005. 


Minnesota. — Rogers  v.  Gaston,  43 
Minn.  189,  45  N.  W.  427. 

Missouri. — Grayson  v.  Weddle,  63 
Mo.  523;  Ewing  v.  Parrish,  148  Mo. 
App.  492,  128  S.  W.  538. 

Ohio. — Wade  v.  Pettibone,  14  Ohio 
557,  affirming  11  Ohio  57,  37  Am. 
Dec.   408. 

Pennsylvania — Dobbins  i\  Stevens, 
17  S.  &  R.  13;  Devinney  f.  Norris,  8 
Watts  314. 

South  Carolina. — Le  Conte  r. 
Irwin,  19  S.  C.  554;  Wilson  v. 
Cantrell,  40  S.  C.  114,  18  S.  E.  517. 
Compare  McCelvey  v.  Thompson,  7 
S.  C.  185. 

West  Virginia.  —  Compare  .New- 
comb  r.  Brooks,  16  W.  Va.  32. 

s  United  States. — Savery  r.  Syplier, 
6  Wall.  157,  18  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  822; 
Fife  r.  Bohlen,  22  Fed.  878;  Bauman 
V.  Eschallier,  184  Fed.  710,  107  C.  C. 
A.  44. 

California. — Fisher    r, 
137  Cal.  28,  60  Pac.  622,  907,  9:: 
St.  Rep.  68. 

Kentucky. — Lasloy     r. 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  896. 

yew  York. — Beardslcy    r 
Johns.  464,  6  Am.  Dec.  386. 

Tennessee. — Washington     i 
son.  7  llumpli.  468. 

6  Warren   r.   Hawkins,   49   Uo.    13* 


INlcInerney, 
Am. 


Lackey,     4 


Root,   11 


.John- 


§    167]         DEALIXGS    BETWEEN    ATTOKXEY    AND    CLIENT. 


299 


to  do  so,  there  is  no  impropriety  in  :in  attorney  representing  his 
client  at  a  judicial  sale,  and  purcliasing  the  pru})erty  as  such  rep- 
resentative.' 

§  167.  Outstanding  Titles.  — In  accordance  with  the  forego- 
ing general  rule,*  an  attorney's  purchase  of  an  outstanding  title  to 
his  client's  property,  or  to  property  in  which  his  client  is  inter- 
ested, will  not  be  elective  as  against  the  client.^  Such  a  purchase, 
and  use  thereof,  against  a  client's  interests,  is  a  breach  of  pro- 
fessional duty  of  which  an  attorney  will  not  be  allowed  to  take 
advantage.^"  The  rule  is  an  unbending  one  that,  when  an  attorney 
buys  an  outstanding  or  adverse  title  to  land,  as  to  which  he  has 
been  consulted  or  employed,  he  buys  for  his  client,  if  the  client 
elects  to  take  it,^^  even  though  the  professional  relation  did  not 
exist  at  the  time  the  purchase  was  made ;  ^^  but  the  client  cannot  be 


7Fabel  t'.  Boykin,  55  Ala.  383; 
Estes  V.  Boothe,  20  Ark.  583;  Rogers 
r.  Rogers,  (Tenn.)  35  S.  W.  890.  See 
also  Russell  v.  Geyer,  4  Mo.  384. 

A  city  attorney  who  becomes  a  pur- 
chaser at  a  foreclosure  sale  for  the 
nonpayment  of  a  special  assessment 
owes  to  the  city  and  to  the  owner 
of  the  property  a  duty  to  exercise 
due  care  in  locating  the  owner  and  to 
pursue  such  sources  of  inquiry  as  are 
open  to  him  leading  to  the  means  of 
giving  notice  to  the  owner,  and  where 
the  city  attorney  violates  this  duty, 
the  sale  may  be  avoided  at  the  suit  of 
the  injured  party.  Roger  v.  Whit- 
ham,  56  Wash.  190,  21  Ann.  Cas.  272, 
105  Pac.  628,  1.34  Am.  St.  Rep.  1105. 

8  See  supra,  §  164. 

9  United  States. — Baker  v.  Hum- 
phrey, 101  U.  S.  494,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
1065. 

Illinois. — Sutlierland  r.  Reeve,  41 
111.  App.  295. 

Indiana. — Downard  r.  Hadley,  116 
Ind.  131,  18  N.  E.  457. 


Iowa. — Byington  r.  Moore,  62  la. 
470.   17  X.  W.  644. 

Mississip/n. — ]Murphey  r.  Sloan,  24 
Miss.  659;  Winn  V.  Dillon,  27  Miss. 
496 ;  Cameron  r.  Lewis,  56  Miss.  82, 
601  ;   Sullivan  r.  Walker,  12  So.  250. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Kline,  96  Mo. 
401,  9  S.  W.  724,  2  L.R.A.  78;  Eoff 
V.  Irvine,  108  Mo.  378,  18  S.  W.  907, 
32  Am.  St.  Rep.  609. 

Pemisylcania. — C'leavinger  v.  Rei- 
mar,  3  W.  &  S.  486;  Hockenbury  r. 
Carlisle,  5  W.  &  S.  348;  Galbrait'h  r. 
Elder,  8  Watts  81;  Smith  p.  Brother- 
line,  62  Pa.   St.  461. 

Vermont. — Davis  r.  Smith,  43  Vt. 
269. 

10  Cameron   v.  Lewis.   56  Miss.  601. 

11  Gibbons  r.  Hoag,  95  111.  45 ; 
Aultman  v.  Loring,  76  Mo.  App.  66; 
Henry  r.  Raiman,  25  Pa.  St.  354,  64 
Am.  Dec.  703;  Smith  v.  Brotherline, 
62  Pa.  St.  461  -.  Davis  r.  Smith,  43  V^t. 
269. 

i2Eoff  V.  Irvine.  108  Mo.  378,  18 
S.    W.    907,    32    Am.    St.    Rep.    609; 


coo 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTOKNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


§  i<; 


coinpelled  to  Take  it.^^  An  attorney  whose  client  is  enaaged  in 
litigation  to  enforce  a  claim  against  a  decedent's  estate,  cannot  pnr- 
chase  the  residuary  share  of  such  estate.'^*  Where  an  attorney  pur- 
chases an  outstanding  title  under  a  parol  agreement  to  hold  the 
land  for  his  client,  the  trust  will  be  enforced. ^^  So,  an  attorney 
who  ^u'ocures  a  judgment  for  his  client,  knowing  it  to  be  invalid, 
and  who  assists  and  suffers  him  to  purchase  the  property  at  an 
execution  sale  under  such  void  judgment,  is  estopped  from  after- 
wards acquiring  title  to  the  same  property  from  the  judgment 
debtor.^®  And  an  attorney  Avho  is  employed  to  sue  a  debt,  attach 
real  estate,  procure  a  judgment,  and  levy  the  same  on  the  land  at- 
tached, is  estopped  from  denying  the  validity  of  such  proceedings, 
to  his  own  profit  or  advantage ;  and  if  they  are  defective,  and  he 
purchases  the  land  levied  on,  the  title  that  he  takes  inures  to  the 
judgment  creditor. '^'^  But  if  a  client,  having  been  advised  by  his 
attorney  to  purchase  an  outstandiug  title,  declines  to  do  so,  the 
attorney  may  thereupon  lawfully  purchase  the  title  either  for  him- 
self.^^  or  for  a  third  person. ^^  So,  while  an  attorney  may  not  buy, 
for  himself,  his  client's  property  at  a  tax  sale,  he  is  not  precluded 


Galbraith  v.  Elder,  8  Watts  (Pa.)  81. 
See  also,  Downard  v.  Hadley,  116  Ind. 
L3],  18  N.  E.  457;  Cameron  v.  Lewis, 
5G  Miss.  80. 

Compare  Roj^ers  f.  Gaston,  43  Minn. 
189,  45  N.  W.  427,  wlierein  an  attor- 
ney employed  to  f  oreelose  a  mortgage, 
Jipon  examining  the  title,  discovered 
that  the  mortgagor  owned  an  nndi- 
\i(!('(i  lialf  interest  in  the  ])remises. 
He  notified  the  agent  of  his  client, 
througli  whom  lie  was  employed,  of 
the  state  of  the  title,  and,  under  his 
instructions,  bid  oflf  the  premises  at 
onc-lialf  of  their  supposed  value,  and 
for  two  years  after  his  relations  as 
attoiiicy  closed  tlie  mortgagee  had 
not  purchased  tiic  outstanding  inter- 
est or  proposed  to  do  so.  It  was  lield 
that  it  was  no  ahuse  of  iiis  privilege 
for    the    attorney    then    to    purchase 


the  outstanding  interest  for  himself; 
that  tlie  court  would  not,  on  the 
ground  of  his  former  relations  with 
the  mortgagee,  declare  him  a  trustee 
of  the  land  for  the  latter.  See  also 
Williams  r.  Maxwell,  45  W.  Va.  297, 
31  S.  E.  909. 

13  Morrison  r.  Thomas,  92  Tex.  329, 
48  S.  W.  500,  modifying  46  S.  W.  40. 
See  also  supra,  §  169. 

14  Stephens  v.  Dubois,  31  R.  I.  138, 
76  Atl.  65G,  140  Am.  St.  Rep.  741. 

15  Hughes  V.  Willson,  128  Ind.  491, 
20  N.  E.  50.  See  also  Edwards  v. 
Cottschalk,   25   :\Io.  App.  549. 

lepiiillips  V.  Blair,  38  Ta.  649. 
"Briggs  V.  Ilodgdon,  78  Me.  514,  7. 
Atl.  387. 

18  Webber  ;;.  Wannemaker,  39  Colo. 
425,  89  Pac.  780. 

19  Humphrey  v.  Hurd,  31  Mich.  430. 


§    168]         DEALINGS    BETWEEX    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT. 


noi 


from  buying  the  tax  title  when,  in  the  absence  of  bad  faith  on  his 
part,  it  has  passed  to  others.^" 

§  168.  Outstanding  Claims. — So  with  outstanding  claims; 
an  attorney  cannot,  consistently  with  his  dnty,  purchase  such  claims 
against  his  client  so  as  to  reap  an  advantage  from  the  transaction.^ 
It  is  fundamental  that  the  court  will  decree  such  a  purchase  to 
be  held  in  trust  for  the  client,^  and  it  is  absolutely  immaterial 
whether  the  client's  claim  is  a  legal  lien  or  not  when  the  attorney 
buys  it.  The  court,  in  such  a  case,  will  impress  a  lien  and  decree 
the  trust.^  An  attorney  at  law  is  not  disqualified  from  purchasing 
a  claim  against  his  client  and  enforcing  it  for  his  own  benefit,  when 
the  transaction  involves  no  duty  or  obligation  to  his  client,  and 
the  purchase  is  made  in  good  faith  in  the  usual  course  of  trade,* 
and  he  uses  no  information  obtained  as  counsel,  and  takes  no  un- 
fair advantage  of  his  client,  or  his  client's  creditors.^  The  burden 
of  establishing  such  good  faith,  if  the  transaction  is  attacked  by 
the  client,  is  on  the  attorney.^ 


20  Lynn  r.  Morse,  76  la.  665.  39  X. 
W.  203.  See  also,  In  re  Maynaid.  1 
Walk.  (Pa.)  472;  Butcher  r.  C'lii- 
dester,  08  W.  Va.  488,  69  S.  E.  1009. 

1  United  States. — Stockton  i\  Ford, 
11  How.  247,  13  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  683; 
Garinger  r.  Palmer,  126  Fed.  906,  61 
C.  C.  A.  436;  Stanwood  v.  Wisliard, 
134  Fed.   9.39. 

California. — Sutliff  v.  Cliinie,  37 
Pac.  224. 

Georgia. — Larey  r.  Baker,  80  Ga. 
468,  12  S.  E.  684. 

Illinois. — McDowell  r.  ]\Iilroy,  69 
111.   498. 

Indiana. — Manhattan  Cloak,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Dodge,  120  Ind.  1,  21  N.  E.  344, 
6  L.R.A.  369. 

Louisiana. — Hoss's  Succession,  42 
La.  Ann.  1022,  8  So.  833. 

Missouri. — Hall  r.  Callalian.  00  Mo. 
316. 

XcbrasLa. — Olson  v.  Lamb,  56  Neb. 


104,   76  N.  W.  433,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
670. 

Xeu-  Yoi-Jc. — Hare  i\  DeYoung,  39 
Misc.  366,  79  N.  Y.  S.  868. 

2  Gilbert  v.  Murphey,  1 03  Fed.  520 ; 
Stanwood  v.  Wishard,  134  Fed.  959; 
Larey  v.  Baker,  80  Ga.  468,  12  S.  E. 
684;  Sutherland  r.  Reeve.  151  111. 
384,  38  N.  E.  130.  See  also  iw/ra, 
§   169. 

3  Stanwood  v.  Wishard,  134  Fed. 
959. 

4  Smith  r.  Craft,  58  S.  W.  500,  22 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  643;  Powell  v.  Willa- 
mette Valley  R.  Co.,  15  Ore.  393,  15 
Pac.  063 ;  Sallade's  Appeal,  36  Pa.  St. 
429;  McKenna  v.  Van  Blarcom,  109 
^Vis.  271.  85  N.  W.  322,  83  Am.  St. 
Rep.  895;  First  Nat.  Bank  r.  Douglas 
County,  124  Wis.  15,  4  Ann.  Cas.  34. 
102  N.  W.  315. 

5  Smith  V.  Craft,  58  S.  W.  500,  22 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  643. 

6  See  supra,  §  151. 


102 


d]:alixgs  bktweex  attorney  axd  clien^t.      [§   169 


§  169.  Purchase    Held    to    Be    in    Trust    for    Client.— 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  rules  stated  in  the  preceding  sections 
of  this  subdivision  merely  have  the  effect  of  prohibiting  an  attor- 
ney from  purchasing  the  subject-matter  of  his  employment  to  the 
detriment  of  his  client ;  "^  they  do  not  render  such  purchases  abso- 
lutely void,^  but  only  voidable,  at  the  client's  election.®  Therefore, 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the  propositions  heretofore 
stated,  it  is  an  established  rule  that  where  an  attorney  does  pur- 
chase, or  otherwise  acquire,  an  interest  in  the  subject-matter  of 
his  employment  adverse  to  that  of  his  client,  the  attorney,  in  such 
ease,  will  be  deemed  to  have  acted  as  a  trustee  for  the  benefit  of 
such  client.^"     The  law  will  not  stop  to  inquire  into  motives  and 


7  See  supra,  §§  164-168. 

8  Pacific  R.  Co.  r.  Ketclmm.  101  U. 
S.  289,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  932;  Hess  c. 
Voss,  52  111.  472;  Heir  v.  Payson,  157 
Til.  244,  41  N.  E.  732:  Lynn  r.  Morse, 
70  la.  665,  39  N.  W.  203;  Dobbins  r. 
Stevens,  17  S.  &  R.  (Pa.)  13;  Devin- 
ney  v.  Norris,  8  Watts  (Pa.)  314; 
Beall  r.  Chatham,  100  Tex.  371.  99 
S.  W.  1116;  Payette  r.  Willis,  23 
Wash.  299,  63  Pac.  254. 

9  Shanklin  v.  Meyler,  5  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
296;  Downey  v.  Gerrard,  3  Grant  Cas. 
(Pa.)  64:  Wheeler  r.  Wilhud.  44  Vt. 
640. 

10  United  States. — Stockton  v.  Ford. 
11  How.  232,  13  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  676; 
Manning  r.  Hayden,  5  Sawy.  360,  16 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,043,  reversed  on  other 
grounds  106  U.  S.  586,  1  S.  Ct.  617, 
27  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  306;  Stanwood  v. 
Wishard,  134  Fed.  959. 

Mahama. — Pearce  r.  Gamble,  72 
Ala.  341;  Singo  r.  Brainard,  173  Ala. 
04,  5.J  So.  603. 

(leorf/ia. — Holmes  ;■.  Holmes,  100 
Ca.  858,  33  S.   K.  216. 

Illinois. —  .Moore  v.  iJrackcii.  27  111. 
23;  Zeifilcr  r.  (iiighes,  55  111.  288; 
Alwood   V.   .Mansfield,  59   111.  496;    :\lc- 


Dowell  V.  Milroy,  69  111.  498;  Suther- 
land V.  Reeve,  41  111.  App.  295. 

Iowa. — Harper  v.  Perry,  28  la.  57; 
Phillips  V.  Blair,  38  la.  649;  Reiek- 
hoff  V.  Brecht,  51  la.  633,  2  N.  W. 
522.  See  also  Lynn  v.  Morse,  76  la. 
665,  39   N.  W.  203. 

Kentueky.— Flumps,  v.  Phillips,  80 
S.  W.  826,  rehearing  denied  81  S.  W. 
689;  Malone  v.  Lebus.  96  S.  W.  519. 

Louisiana. — McMicliael  c.  David- 
son, 7  Rob.  53;  Relf  r.  Ives,  10  La. 
509;  Hyams  i\  Herndon.  36  La.  Ann. 
879;  Brigham  r.  Newton,  49  La.  Ann. 
1539,  22  So.  777. 

Maine. — Briggs  V.  Hodgdon,  78  ^le. 
514,  7  Atl.  387. 

Michigan. — Taylor  r.  Young.  56 
Mich.  285,  22  N.  W.  799;  ]5oardman 
r.  Boozewinkel,  121  Mich.  320.  80  N. 
W.  37,  6  Detroit  Leg.  N.  467 :  iJoberts 
r.  Gates,  146  Mich.  169,  109  X.  W. 
264,   13  Detroit  Leg.  N.  724. 

Afississippi. — Johnson  r.  Outlaw, 
56  Miss.  541;  Gaston  r.  King,  63 
Miss.  326;  Sullivan  r.  Walk.T.  12  So. 
250.  See  also  Christian  r.  O'X.'al,  46 
.Miss.    609. 

.Missouri. — Blis^  r.  Pricliard.  07 
Mo.     181;     Ward    ?;.    Brown,    87     Mo. 


160] 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AJ^D    CLIENT. 


intentions,  nor  to  calculate  whether,  in  fact,  a  profit  has  been  made  ; 
but  whenever  advised  that  the  attorney  holds,  as  his  own,  property 
in  relation  to  which  he  has  been  intrusted  with  guarding  the  in- 
terests of  his  client,  it  will  compel  him  to  hold  as  trustee  aud  imt 
as  owner.^^  It  seems  that  this  rule  also  extends  to  the  attorney's 
clerk.^^  A  client  has  the  right  to  treat  all  acts  of  his  solicitor 
touching  his  interest,  as  having  been  done  for  his  benefit;  ^^  and 
he  is  entitled  to  an  accounting  and  to  the  benefit  of  any  profits 
which    the    attorney    has    made    from    such    transactions/*  or  he 


408;  Davis  r.  Kline,  96  Mo.  401,  9 
S.  W.  724,  2  L.R.A.  78;  Bucher  v. 
Hohl,  199  Mo.  320,  97  S.  W.  922,  116 
Am.  St.  Rep.  492;  Edwards  v.  Gotts- 
chalk,  25  Mo.  App.  549;  Wilber  v. 
Robinson,  29  Mo.  App.  157;  Aiiltman 
r.  Loring,  76  Mo.  App.  66. 

XebraskO'. — Olson  v.  Lamb,  56  Neb. 
115,  76  N.  W.  433,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
670. 

Xew  York. — Fn  re  Friedman,  27 
Hun  301 ;  Johnstone  c.  O'Connor,  21 
App.  Div.  77,  47  N.  Y.  S.  425,  af- 
firmed 162  N.  Y.  639,  57  N.  E.  1113: 
Nichols  r.  Riley,  118  App.  Div.  404, 
103  N.  Y.  S.  554;  Hawley  r.  Cramer, 
4  Cow.  717;  Howell  r.  Baker,  4  Johns. 
Cb.  118;  Giddings  c.  Eastman,  5 
Paige  561 ;  Case  r.  Carroll,  35  N.  Y. 
385.  See  Beardsley  r.  Root,  11  Johns. 
404,  6  Am.  Dee.  386. 

Ohio. — Wade  i'.  Pettibone,  11  Ohio 
57,  37  Am.  Dec.  408,  bill  of  review 
dismissed  14  Ohio  557. 

Pennsylvania. — Cleavinger  v.  Rei- 
mar,  3  W.  &  S.  486;  Leisenring  v. 
Black.  5  Watts  303,  30  Am.  Dec.  322; 
Fislier  r.  Knox,  13  Pa.  St.  622,  53 
Am.  Dec.  503 ;  Downey  r.  Gerrard,  3 
Grant  Cas.  64;  Albright  v.  Mercer, 
14  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  63;  Whitman  r. 
O'Brien,  29  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  208;  Lock- 
hard  V.  McKinley.  9  W.  N.  C.  11  ; 
Barrett  r.  Bamber,  9  Phila.  202,  31 
Leg.   Int.   164. 


Texas. — Kenyan  v.  Trevino,  137  S. 
W.  458. 

Vermont. — See  Wheeler  v.  Willard, 
44  Vt.  640. 

West  Virginia. — Keenan  v.  Scott, 
64  W.  Va.  137.  61  S.  E.  806. 

Wisconsin. — In  re  Taylor  Orplian 
Asylum,  36  Wis.  534;  O'Dell  v. 
Rogers,  44  Wis.  136. 

11  Johnson  v.  Outlaw,  56  Miss.  540. 

12  Tlius  where  a  mortgagee  con- 
sulted a  solicitor,  who  turned  her 
over  to  his  clerk  to  assist  her  gratui- 
tously, and  the  clerk,  by  reason  of  the 
information  derived  during  such  em- 
jdoyment,  bought  the  mortgage  for 
less  than  half  the  amount  thereof,  he 
was  held  to  be  a  trustee  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  mortgagee.  Hobday  v. 
Peters,  28  Beav.  (Eng.)  349.  And 
see  supra,  §  165. 

13  Wheeler   v.   WMlIard,   44   Vt.  640. 

14  Indiana. — Manhattan  Cloak  & 
Suit  Co.  V.  Dodge,  120  Ind.  1.  21  N. 
E.  344,  6  L.R.A.  369. 

loiva. — Byington  r.  Moore,  62 
Iowa  470,  17  N.  W.  644. 

A'e>i/!/r;Ay.— Scott  v.  Wickliffe,  1  B. 
Mon.   353. 

Mississippi. — Gaston  v.  King,  63 
Miss.   326. 

Xebraska. — Levara  v.  ^IcNeny,  5 
Neb.  (unofficial)  Rep.  318,  98  N.  W. 
679,  modified  73  Neb.  414,  102  N.  W. 
1042. 


304 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    ITO 


may  have  them  set  aside/^   unless  the   attorney   establishes   the 
bona  fides  of  his  conduct  within  the  rule  heretofore  stated. ^^ 

§  170.  Rights  of  Third  Persons.  — It  is  clear  from  the  fore- 
going sections  that  the  purpose  of  the  rule  forbidding  an  attorney 
to  purchase  property  in  which  his  client,  as  such,  is  interested,  is 
essentially  for  the  attorney's  protection.  Except  as  against  the 
client,  the  purchase  is  valid. ^'  Thus  a  third  party  cannot  set  up 
the  title  of  the  client  in  defense  of  a  suit  brought  by  the  attorney 
for  possession  of  the  land.^*  And  where  an  attorney  purchases  for 
his  own  benefit,  a  title  adverse  to  that  of  his  client,  he  is  not  lial)le 
to  an  action  in  favor  of  a  subsequent  grantee  of  his  client. ^^  So, 
also,  where  an  attorney's  purchase  is  voidable  as  to  his  client,  it  is 
also  voidable  as  to  third  persons  who,  with  notice  of  the  client's 
equities,  purchase  the  premises  from  such  attorney ;  ^°  and  the  heirs 
of  the  attorney  will  take  property,  so  acquired  by  him,  subject  to 
the  trust  in  favor  of  the  client,  even  though  they  had  no  notice  of 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  attorney  purchased.^  A  bona 
fide  jDurchase  from  the  attorney  for  value,  however,  without  no- 
tice of  the  client's  equities,  is  entitled  to  protection ;  ^  so,  also,  such 


Xew  York. — In  re  Friedman,  27 
Hun  301  ;  Giddings  f.  Eastman,  5 
Paige  5G1. 

Pennsyhania. — In  re  ]\Iaynard,  1 
Walk.  472;  Albright  r.  INIercer,  34 
Pa.   Super.  Ct.  63. 

Washington. — Gaffney  r.  Jones,  18 
AYash.  311,  51   Pac.  401. 

15  Valentine  c.  Stewart,  15  Cal. 
387:  Prouty  v.  Builard,  77  Iowa  42, 
41  X.  \V.  551);  Lasley  r.  Lackey,  4 
Ky.  L.  IJcp.  ^!!)();  Ilowrll  r.  Baker,  4 
Jolins.  (  li.  (X.  V.)  IIS;  Xcweomb  r. 
Brooks.    If)    \V.   \a.   -.Vl. 

16  See   supra,   §    152. 

17  Holland  Trust  Co.  r.  llogaii,  i>:i 
Iliin  (;:!1  iiM'iii..  17  N.  \.  S.  !tl!l-. 
Whiliiiaii  r.  OMlricn,  21)  I'a.  Su|n'r. 
ft.  2()S:  W  il.-.(in  r.  Cantrrll.  |(t  S.  (  . 
114,  IS  S.   !•;.  517. 


18  Leach  r.  Fowler,  22  Ark.  143. 
See  also  Estes  v.  Boothe,  20  Ark.  583. 

19  Cowan    r.  Barret,   18   Mo.   257. 
ZOPurcell   r.    Enright,  31   N.  J.   Eq. 

74:  Henry  r.  Painian.  25  Pa.  St.  354, 
64  Am.  Dec.  703. 

Record  as  Notice. — The  record  show- 
ing the  fact  of  a  jiurchase  by  the  at- 
torney of  the  ])laintiti"  in  a  judgment 
of  property  sold  thereunder,  for  a 
price  less  tlian  its  amount,  is  con- 
structive notice  to  a  purchaser  from 
the  attorney  of  the  implied  trust  in 
favor  of  the  client,  and  fixes  upon 
such  purchaser  the  same  trust.  Bar- 
rrtt  r.  Baniber,  0  Pliila.  (Pa.)  202, 
;il    Leg.  Int.   164. 

iCiddings  r.  Eastman.  5  Paige 
(X.   V.)    561. 

2  L.'wis  r.  Brown.  36  W.  Va.  1,  14 
S.    !■:.  444. 


§§     171,    172]    DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AJSfD    CLIENT.        305 

a  purchase  from  the  client  would  carry  with  it  the  client's  equities 
as  against  the  attorney.' 

§  171.  Effect  of  Client's  Consent. —  The  purchase  of  a  cli- 
ent's property,  or  property  in  which  he  is  interested,  hy  the  attor- 
ney, will  be  valid  where  the  client  consents  thereto,*  or  ratifies  it.* 
Such  consent  or  ratification,  however,  must  be  explicit,  and  fairly 
obtained ;  ^  a  consent  fraudulently  procured  will  not,  of  course, 
bind  the  client.^ 

§  172.  Existence  of  Professional  Relationship. — The  mere 
fact  that  one  is  an  attorney  does  not  prevent  him  from  buying 
property  with  the  same  liberty  exercised  by  others  unless,  of  course, 
there  is  some  statutory  restriction  in  this  regard ;  '  it  is  only  where 
a  client  is  involved  that  the  law  undertakes  to  prohibit  the  attorney 
from  becoming  the  purchaser  of  property  to  such  client's  detri- 
ment.^ It  is  clear  therefore  that  an  attorney  may  purchase  where 
the  professional  relation  does  not  exist  between  him  and  the  owner 
of,  or  a  person  interested  in,  the  property  which  he  desires  to  buy.^° 


3  "The  obligation  of  fidelity  which 
an  attorney  owes  to  his  client  is  a 
continuing  one,  so  far  as  respects  any 
matter  which  has  once  been  profes- 
sionally committed  to  the  attorney's 
confidence;  and  when  the  matter  in- 
volved is  the  title  to  land,  good  faith 
and  public  policy  require  that  any  ex- 
isting adverse  title,  which  the  latter 
may  thereafter  purchase,  shall  be 
deemed  to  inure  to  the  benefit  of  his 
client  or  his  (the  client's)  vendee." 
Downard  v.  Hadley,  ]1G  Ind.  ]31,  ]8 
N.  E.  457.  See  also  Henry  v.  Raiman, 
25  Pa.  St.  354,  64  Am.  Dec.  703. 

4  Fisher  r.  McTnerney,  137  Cal.  28, 
69  Pac.  622,  907.  92  Am.  St.  Rep.  68 ; 
Page  V.  Stubbs,  39  Iowa  537;  Mer- 
ritt  V.  Graves,  52  Wash.  57,  100  Pac. 
164.  And  see  Rutland  R.  Co.  v. 
Beique,  37  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  303. 

5  Olson   V.  Lamb,   56  Neb.    104,    76 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 20. 


X.  W.  433,  71  Am.  St.  Rep.  670; 
Johnstone  r.  O'Connor,  162  N^.  Y. 
639,  57  N.  E.  1113,  affirmed  21  App. 
Div.  77,  47  X.  Y.  S.  425. 

6  Bucher  r.  Hohl,  199  Mo.  320,  97 
S.  W.  922,  116  Am.  St.  Rep.  492. 

7  Linsley  r.  Sinclair,  24  Mich.  380. 

8  See  infra,   §§   395-397. 

9  As  to  the  creation  and  termina- 
tion of  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client    see    supya,    §§    133-142. 

10  England. — Mason's  Hall  Tavern 
Co.  V.  Xokes,  22  L.  T.  X.  S.  503; 
Davis  r.  Freethy,  24  Q.  B.  D.  519; 
Guest  V.  Smythe,  L.  R.  5  Ch.  551,  39 
L.  J.  Ch.  536. 

United  States. — Doster  v.  Scully, 
27  Fed.  782. 

Illinois. — Francisco  v.  Dove,  231 
111.  402.  83  X.  E.  205. 

Louisiana. — Railsback  v.  Leonard, 
118  La.  916,  43  So.  548. 


306 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    iTo 


So  where  such  professional  relation,  although  it  fonnerly  existed, 
has  ceased,  the  attorney  again  becomes  free  to  purchase  property 
irrespective  of  the  fact  that  a  former  client  is  interested  in,  or 
owns,  it;  ^^  providing,  of  course,  that  no  unfair  advantage  is  taken 
of  the  client.^^  This  subject  is  also  considered  in  connection  with 
dealings  between  attorney  and  client. ^^ 

§  173.  Laches.  —  As  heretofore  stated  in  another  connection,^* 
while  statutes  of  limitation  are  not  controlling  in  this  respect,  nev- 
ertheless, the  client's  right  to  claim  the  benefit  of  a  purchase  made 
by  his  attorney  must  be  exercised  within  a  reasonable  time ;  laches 
being  recognized  as  an  available  defense  where  such  claims  are  as- 
serted.''*    A  client  must  notify  his  attorney  promptly  of  his  elec- 


Michigati. — Taylor  r.  Boardmaii, 
24  Midi.  287. 

Mississippi. — Christian  r.  O'Neal, 
46  Miss.  609. 

XebrasLa.—BaU  r.  Strode,  19  Xeb. 
658,  28  X.  W.  312. 

Pennsjjlvania. — Ferree  v.  I'nited 
Storage  Co.,  227  Pa.  St.  41,  75  Atl. 
8.38. 

n  Enr/latid.—Conka  v.  Boswell,  11 
App.  (as.  232. 

Arkansas. — Pack  v.  Crawford.  29 
Ark.  489. 

California. — Porter  /:.  Peckham,  44 
Cal.  204. 

Joira. — Baker  r.  Davis,  35  Jowa 
184. 

Kansas. — Caldwell  v.  Bigger,  76 
Kan.  49,  90  Pac.   1095. 

Kentucky. — Smith  v.  Craft,  58  S. 
W.  500,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep.  643. 

Minnesota. — Rogers  v.  Gaston,  43 
Minn.  189,  45  N.  W.  427:  Sandford 
/-.  Flint,  ins  Minn.  399,  122  X.  \V. 
;{15. 

Mississippi. —  Bowers  r.  Xiidcn  56 
.Miss.  595. 

I'mnsijlrania. — Devinney  r.  Xorris, 
8   WattH  314. 


South  Carolina. — Wilson  r.  Can- 
trell,  40  S.  C.  114,  18  S.  E.  517. 

South  Dakota. — Grantz  r.  Dead- 
wood  Terra  Mining  Co.,  17  S.  D.  61, 
95  X.  W.  277. 

West  Virriinia. — Williams  r.  i\Iax- 
well,  45  W.  Va.  297,  31  S.  E.  909. 

12  See  generally  §   164  et  seq. 

13  See  supra.  §  152. 

14  See  supra,  §  162. 

15  United  States. — Marsh  v.  Whit- 
more,  21  Wall.  178,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
482. 

Illinois. — Elmore  r.  Johnson,  143 
Til.  513,  32  N.  E.  413,  36  Am.  St.  Rep. 
401,  21  L.R.A.  366:  Herr  v.  Payson, 
157  111.  244,  41  X.  E.  732.  Compare 
Sutherland  r.  Reeve,  151  111.  384,  38 
N.  E.  130. 

Ioic<i. — Page  f.  Stubbs,  39  la.  537: 
Eckrote  r.  Myers,  41  la.  324. 

Kaii.sas. — Wills  r.  Wood,  28  Kan. 
400. 

Minnesota. — Rogers  r.  Gaston,  43 
Minn.  189,  45  X.  W.  427. 

Mississippi. — Johnson  r.  Outlaw, 
56  .Miss.  547. 

Missouri. — Bliss     r.     Priehard,     67 


§   174]       DEALINGS   i;i:t\vek.\   A'n()i;.\,';v   axd  cliea't. 


307 


tion  to  claiiii  the  benefit  of  the  pnrehase,  especially  where  delay 
will  ati'ect  the  position  of  the  parties  or  the  value  of  the  property. ^^ 
The  client  cannot,  however,  he  charged  with  laches  \mtil  he  has, 
or  should  have  had,  kuowhMliic  of  the  facts." 


Beprcseiiliii;/  Conflirliiig  Interests. 

§  174.  General  Rule. —  It  is  a  well-settled  general  rule  tluit 
an  attorney  cannot  represent  conflicting  interests,  or  undertake  the 
discharge  of  inconsistent  duties.  When  he  has  once  been  retained 
and  received  the  confidence  of  a  client,  he  cannot  accept  a  retainer 
from,  or  entei'  the  service  of,  those  whose  interests  are  adverse  to 
his  client  in  the  same  controversy,  or  in  matters  so  closely  allied 
thereto  as  to  be,  in  effect,  a  part  thereof. ^^    The  rule  is  a  rigid  one. 


Mo.  18]  ;  Ward  r.  Brown,  87  Mo.  468; 
Wilbcr  ;■.  Robinson,  29  Mo.  App.  157. 

A'eic  York. —  Hawlcy  r.  Cramer^  4 
Cow.  717. 

Ohio. — Wade  v.  Peltibone,  11  Ohio 
57,  37  Am.  Dec.  408,  bill  of  review 
dismissed   14  Ohio  557. 

West  Virginia. — Lewis  r.  Broun.  36 
W.  Va.  1.  14  S.  E.  444. 

IC  Johnson  r.  Outlaw,  56  ^liss.  541  ; 
Ward  r.  Brown,  87  Mo.  468;  Wilbcr 
V.   Robinson,   29   Mo.  App.    157. 

l?  Aullman  r.  Loring,  76  Mo.  App. 
66. 

18  EnijUind. — Davies  v.  Cloiigli,  8 
Sim.  262 ;  Cholmondeley  v.  Clinton, 
]9  Ves.  Jr.  261,  Coop.  t.  Eld.  80. 

Can'jda. — Ex  p.  Philip,  26  N. 
Brinij-.  178;  Re  Charles  Stark  Co.,  15 
Ont.  Pr.  471.  See  also  Eraser  r.  Hali- 
fax, etc..  R.  Co.,  18  Nova  Scotia  23; 
Beatty  r.  Haldan.  10  Ont.  278;  Re 
Joseph  Hall  ^Mfg.  Co.,  10  Ont.  Pr. 
485. 

United  SItntes. — -Williams  i".  Reed, 
3  Mason  405,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,733; 
U.  S.  r.  Costen,  38  Fed.  24;  In  re 
Boone,    83    Fed.    944;    Lalancc,    etc., 


Mfg.  Co.  r.  Haberman  Mfg.  Co.,  93 
Fed.  197:  In  re  \\  ooten,  118  Fed. 
670. 

Alabama. — Agncw  r.  Walden,  84 
Ala.  502,  4  So.  672;  Parker  r.  Parker, 
99  Ala.  239,  13  So.  520,  42  Am.  St. 
Rep.  48. 

California. — Valentine  r.  Stewart, 
15  Cal.  387;  DeCelis  v.  Brunson,  53 
Cal.  372;  In  re  Cowdery,  69  Cal.  32, 
10  Pac.  47,  58  Am.  Rep.  545;  Weide- 
kind  r.  Tuolumne  County  Water  Co., 
74  Cal.  386,  19  Pac.  173,  5  Am.  St. 
Rep.  445;  Perkins  v.  West  Coast 
Lumber  Co.,  129  Cal.  427,.  62  Pac. 
57;  Bryant  v.  Mcintosh,  3  Cal.  App. 
95.  84  Pac.  440. 

Connecticut. — In  re  Premier  Cycle 
:Mfg.  Co.,  70  Conn.  473,  39  Atl.  800. 

Georc/ia. — Kidd  v.  Huff.  105  O;'. 
209,  31  S.  E.  430. 

Haicaii. — Matter  of  ]\lagoon,  16 
Hawaii   761. 

Illinois. — Strong  r.  International 
Bldg.,  etc..  Union.  183  111.  97.  55  N. 
E.  675,  47  L.R.A.  792.  affinning  82 
111.  App.  426;  Heffron  c.  Flower,  35 
111.  App.  200, 


JOS 


dp:alings  between  attoeney   and  client.       [§   174 


aud  designed  not  alone  to  prevent  the  dishonest  practitioner  from 
frandulent  conduct,  but  as  well  to  preclude  the  honest  practitioner 
from  putting  himself  in  a  position  where  he  may  be  required  to 
choose  between  conflicting  duties,  or  be  led  to  an  attempt  to  rec- 
oncile conflicting  interests  rather  than  to  enforce  to  their  full  ex- 
tent the  rights  of  the  interest  which  he  should  alone  represent." 
An  attorney  is  bound  at  all  times  to  hold  himself  in  readiness  to 
render  professional  aid  to  his  client,  unembarrassed  by  any  such 
complications  as  an  allegiance  to  other  interests  would  present.^" 


Indiana. — Wilson  r.  State.  3G  Ind. 
392;  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  18  Ind.  137 ;  Bowman  v.  Bowman, 
153  Ind.  498,  55  N.  E.  422. 

loiia. — State  v.  Halstead,  73  la. 
376,  35  N.  W.  457;  Shoemake  r. 
Smith,  80  la.  655,  45  N.  W.  744;  In  re 
Cummings,  120  la.  421,  94  N.  W. 
1117;  Whitcomb  v.  Collier,  133  la. 
303,  110  N.  W.  836. 

Kansas. — McArthur  v.  Fry,  10 
Kan.  233. 

KentucL- 1/.— Ball  r.  Poor,  81  Ky. 
20. 

Massachusetts. — Gordon  v.  Green, 
113  Mass.  259;  Provident  Sav.  Inst, 
r.  White,  115  Mass.  112.  See  also 
Com.  r.  Gibbs,  4  Gray  146;  Keyes  v. 
McKerrow,  ISO  Mass.  261,  62  N.  e. 
259. 

Michigan. — Briggs  v.  Withey,  24 
Mich.   136. 

Mississippi. — Spinks  v.  Davis,  32 
Miss.  154;  .Jenkins  /'.  Barber,  85  Miss. 
666,  38  So.  36. 

Missouri. — MacDonald  v.  \Vagner, 
5  Mo.  App.  56. 

Xcir  York. — Sher\\()()(i  /".  Saratoga, 
etc.,  i:.  Co.,  15  Barb.  ti.lO;  Ilerrick  v. 
Catlcy.  .iO  How.  Pr.  208,  1  Daly  512; 
Hatch  r.  Fogerty,  40  How.  Pr.  492; 
Hare  V.  De Young,  39  .Misc.  366,  79 
\.    \.  S.  868. 

North    Carolina.  —  Wilson    Cotton 


Mills  V.  C.  C.  Randleman  Cotton 
Mills,  116  N.  C.  647,  21  S.  E.  431; 
Marcom  v.  Wyatt,  117  N.  C.  129,  23 
S.  E.  169. 

Ohio. — Wilson  r.  Jennings,  3  Ohio 
St.   528. 

Tennessee. — Cantrell  v.  Chism,  5 
Sneed   116. 

Washington. — Clarke  County  r. 
Clarke  County,  1  Wash.  Ter.  250; 
Nickels  r.  Griffin,  1  Wash.  Ter.  374. 

19  Strong  V.  International  Building, 
etc..  Union,  183  111.  97,  55  N.  E.  675, 
47  L.R.A.  792. 

No  matter  how  high  his  motives  or 
how  honorable  his  intention,  "no  man 
can  serve  two  masters ;  for  either  he 
will  hate  the  one,  and  love  the  other ; 
or  he  will  hold  to  the  one,  and  de- 
spise the  other."  Neither  can  a  man 
ride  two  horses  going  in  opposite  di- 
rections at  the  same  time.  It  is  use- 
less to  attempt  it.  Fidelity  must 
and  will  be  required  from  all  those 
holding  fiduciary  relations.  They 
must  not  lightly  enter  upon  such  re- 
lationships, but,  if  they  do,  they  will 
not  be  permitted  to  be  disloyal;  and 
of  all  species  of  disloyalty  desertion 
and  adherence  to  the  enemy  or  to  the 
()|ip().sing  party  in  a  suit  is  recognized 
as  tli(!  worst.  Murray  v.  Lizotle,  31 
R.   1.  509,  77  Atl.  231. 

SOQiiiim  r.  Van  Pelt,  36  Super.  Ct. 
(\.  Y.)    279. 


§    175]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AJJD    CLIENT.  309 

He  can  undertake  no  adverse  employment  no  matter  how  honest 
may  be  his  motives  and  intentions/  or  even  though,  while  acting 
for  his  former  client,  he  acquired  no  knowledge  which  could  oper- 
ate to  the  client's  disadvantage  in  the  subsequent  adverse  employ- 
ment.^ He  "owetli  to  his  client  fidelit}^  secrecy,  diligence,  and 
skill,  and  cannot  take  a  reward  on  the  other  side."  ^  Attorneys  at 
law  are  not  such  mere  mercenaries  that  they  may  desert  the  cause 
of  those  for  whom  they  are  enlisted,  and  take  service  on  the  other 
side,  for  no  other  reason  than  that  their  fees  are  not  wholly  paid. 
They  are  not  bound  to  serve  those  who  will  not  pay  them,  and  may 
withdraw  from  the  service  of  such,  but  they  cannot  take  employ- 
ment from  the  adverse  party.*  Nor  can  the  members  of  a  firm  of 
attorneys  represent  opposite  sides  of  the  same  cause  without  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  their  clients.^  A  power  of  attorney 
given  to  the  plaintiff's  attorney  by  the  defendant,  authorizing  him 
to  enter  defendant's  appearance,  is  void  as  against  public  policy.^ 

§  175.  Extent  and  Application  of  Rule.  —  In  applying  the 
foregoing  general  rule  it  has  been  held  that  an  attorney  who  is  tlie 
executor  or  administrator  of  an  estate,  cannot  act  as  counsel  for 
clients  whose  interests  are  adverse  to  those  of  the  estate  with  which 
he  is  so  identified ;  thus  he  cannot  represent  one  who  prosecutes  a 
claim  against  the  estate.'  A  contract  by  which  an  attorney  takes 
a  claim  against  an  estate  for  collection,  and  to  that  end  agrees  to 
administer  on  such  estate,  is  void  as  against  public  policy,  and  no 

1  Strong   r.   International   Building,  of    the    defendants    in    bills    of    inter- 

etc,  Union,  183  111.  97,  55  N.  E.  675,  pleader,    or    in    the    nature    of    inter- 

47     L.R.A.     792;     National     Hollow  pleader.     Houghton  r.  Kendall,  7  Al- 

Brake  Beam  Co.  r.  Rakewell,  224  Mo.  len   72;    Gordon   r.   Green,   113   Mass. 

203,  123  S.  W.  561;   Arrington  v.  Ar-  259;    Provident   Sav.    Inst.    r.    White, 

rington.  116  X.  C.  170,  21   S.  E.  181.  115  Mass.  112. 

sPeirce    r.    Palmer.    31    R.    I.    432,  4  State   v.  Halstead,  73   la.   376,  35 

Ann.  Cas.  1912B  181,  77  Atl.  201.  X.  W.  457:   Gooch   v.  Peebles,    105  X. 

3  Per  Chief  Justice  Robert  in  Her-  C.  411,  11  S.  E.  415. 
rick   V.  Catley,  30  How.  Pr.    (X.  Y.)  5  Qstrander  r.  Capitol  Invest.,  etc., 

208.  Assoc,  130  Mich.  312,  89  X.  W.  964; 

Tinder    a     Massacluisefts    rluinrcnj  Cox  r.  Barnes,  45  Xeb.  172,  63  X.  W. 

rule    no   solicitor    or   counsel    for   the  394. 

plaintiff  can  appear,   or  be  heard,  or  6  Ball  v.  Poor,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep.  746. 

act  for  or  on  behalf  of  any  or  either  7  Jones  v.  Boulware,  39  Tex.  367. 


310  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    175 

action  can  be  maintained  against  the  attorney  for  his  failure  to 
collect  the  debt.^  Where  an  attorney,  in  his  capacity  as  adminis- 
trator of  an  estate,  filed  a  bill  against  a  former  client,  which 
brought  into  question  the  validity  of  a  deed  made  during  the  pro- 
fessional relationship,  the  defendant  was  allowed  to  suggest  that 
relationship  in  his  answer,  although  it  should  properly  have  been 
urged  before  the  surrogate  as  an  objection  to  the  appointment  of 
the  attorney  as  administrator.^  Counsel  who  appear  for  an  exec- 
utor or  trustee  in  cases  brought  for  the  construction  of  wills,  ought 
not  to  appear  and  act  for  legatees  and  devisees  under  the  will.^° 
So,  an  attorney  for  the  executors  of  an  estate  is  disqualified  to  rep- 
resent the  heirs  for  the  purpose  of  supervising  the  proceedings  of 
the  executors  with  reference  to  distribution.''^  ISTor  can  an  attor- 
ney appear  both  for  an  administrator,  on  his  petition  for  permis- 
sion to  sell  his  intestate's  land  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  estate,  and 
also  for  the  guardian  of  a  minor  heir.^^  So,  on  a  bill  filed  by  a 
widow  to  compel  the  settlement  of  the  estate  of  her  deceased  hus- 
band, the  defendant's  solicitor  cannot  properly  represent  the  minor 
heirs,  their  interests  being  adverse  to  that  of  the  defendant.^' 
Where  an  attorney  has  been  employed  by  a  wife  to  secure  a  separa- 
tion from  her  husband,  he  cannot  engage  with  the  husband  to  act 
as  his  attorney  in  preventing  it.'*  And  on  the  hearing  of  a  motion 
to  set  aside  a  judgment  annulling  a  marriage,  the  same  counsel 
cannot  represent  both  parties.^^  So,  also,  a  solicitor  in  a  case  can- 
not act  as  special  master  to  execute  the  decree;  '®  but  it  has  been 
held  that  a  master  in  chancery,  who  granted  a  preliminary  in- 
junction in  a  suit  to  enjoin  certain  taxes,  is  competent  to  appear 
as  counsel  for  the  defendant  in  subsequent  proceedings  in  the  same 
action."     Nor  can  a  referee  accept  employment  from  one  of  the 

8  Spinks  V.  Davis,  32  Miss.  152.  13  Parker    i\   Parker,    09    Ala.    239, 

9  Lawrence    V.     Lawrence,    4     Edw.        L?  So.  .520,  42  Am.  St.  Rep.  48. 

(X.  Y.)   357.  I4iiprrick    r.   Catiey,    :!0    How.    Pr. 

lOBelfieid    r.    lloutli,    03    Conn.  299,  (N.  Y.)  208,  1  Daly  512. 

27    .\tL    585;     Smith    r.    .Jordan,     77  15  Johnson    r.    -Johnson,    141    N.    C. 

Conn.  4(i9,  59  Atl.  507;  9L  53   S.   E.  (i23. 

n  Bryant   r.   Mclntosli,  3  Cai.   App.  16  \\  liite  r.   UafVaker.  27   IIL  349. 

95,  84  Pac.  440.  17  Barrett    V.    Waters,    19    HI.    App. 

12^L^reom  r.  Wyatt,  117  N.  C.  129,  C52. 
23  S.   K.  ItiO. 


§    175]         DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  311 

litigants  in  an  action  which  has  been  referred  to  hini.^^  The  fore- 
going general  rule  has  also  been  applied  to  matters  other  than 
those  which  call  for  the  rendition  of  professional  services.  An  at- 
torney should  not  permit  hiuiself  to  be  retained  in  a  cause  with 
which  his  personal  interests  contlict;  nor  should  he  accept  ])ositions 
or  occupations  of  a  nonprofessional  character,  the  duties  of  which 
may  reasonably  be  supposed  to  be  adverse  to  his  client's  interests. ^^ 
Thus  the  interests  of  the  state  insurance  department,  and  the  com- 
panies under  its  control,  being  so  divergent,  the  attorney  of  the 
former  cannot  accept  a  salaried  position  with  one  of  such  com- 
panies.^" Xor  can  the  trustee  under  a  deed  of  assignment  act  as 
attorney  for  a  creditor  thereunder,^  So  where  a  solicitor  general 
has,  during  his  term  of  office,  instituted  a  prosecution  against  a 
defendant,  by  preferring  a  bill  of  indictment  against  him  for  a 
violation  of  the  law,  public  policy  forbids  that,  after  his  term  of 
office  expires,  he  should  be  allowed  to  be  employed  as  counsel  for 
such  defendant  on  his  trial  for  the  oifense  charged  in  such  indict- 
ment.^ Of  course,  the  mere  fact  that  an  attorney  was,  or  is,  in- 
cidentally connected  with  adverse  interests  does  not  of  itself  dis- 
qualify him.  lie  is  at  liberty  to  act  for  new  clients  whenever 
their  interests  are  not  necessarily  adverse  to  those  of  his  old  clients, 
and  he  is  not  called  upon  to  use,  or  take  advantage  of,  the  con- 
lidential  communications  of  the  former  client  for  the  benefit  of  the 
new  one.^  Thus  one  who  acted  as  commissioner  to  examine  and 
allow  claims  against  an  insolvent  savings  bank,  is  not  disqualified 

18  Stebbins  v.  Brown,  65  Barb.  3  United  States. — Shaw  r.  Bill,  95 
(N.  Y.)    272.                                                      U.  S.  10,  24  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   333;  In  re 

19  Jenkins   v.  Barber,  85  Miss.   66G,       McKenna,   137  Fed.  611. 

38  So.  36;   Annely  r.  De  Saussure,  12  Alabama. — Cargile     r.     Ragan,     65 

S.    C.   507.     See    also    Kelley    v.   Mc-  Ala.    287;    Ex    p.    Randall,    14'.)    Ala. 

Minniman,    58    N.   H.   288.     And    see  640,  42  So.  870. 

the  cases  cited  infra,  under  §  176.  California. — Hicks     r.     Drew.      117 

20  So  held  independently  of  statu-  Cal.  305,  49  Pac.  189;  In  re  Jones, 
tory  provisions.  In  re  Bowman,  7  118  Cal.  499,  50  Pac.  766,  62  Am.  St. 
Mo.  App.  51)9.  Rep.    251;    Goad    V.    Hart,    128    Cal. 

1  Wilson  Cotton  Mills  ('.  C.  C.  Ran-  197.    60    Pac.    761,    964;     Perkins    r. 

dleman   Cotton  Mills,   116  N.  C.   647,  West  Coast  Lumber  Co.,  129  Cal.  427. 

21   S.  E.  431.  62   Pae.  57;   Van  Loben  Sels   /•.   ]5uii- 

2Gaulden  r.  State.  11   Ga.  47.  nell,  131  Cal.  489,  63  Pac.  773;   In  re 


312 


DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§     17 


from  acting  as  attorney  for  the  assignee.'*  So,  the  mere  fact  that 
an  attorney  is  employed  as  an  agent  to  negotiate  loans,  does  not 
preclude  him  from  rendering  professional  services  to  his  prin- 
cipal.^ The  position  of  an  attorney  who  acts  for  both  parties,  to 
the  knowledge  of  each,  in  the  preparation  of  papers  needed  to 
effect  their  purpose,  and  gives  to  each  the  advice  necessary  for  his 
protection,  is  recognized  by  the  law  as  a  proper  one.^  And  where 
attorneys,  in  the  settlement  of  a  partnership  account,  represent  the 
interest  of  two  of  the  partners  until  a  conflict  arises  between  them, 
and  then  devote  their  services  to  only  one  of  said  partners,  com- 
pensation will  be  awarded  to  the  attorneys,  as  against  the  other 
partner,  up  to  the  time  when  they  abandoned  his  cause.'  When 
the  plaintiff  chooses  to  sign  a  paper  authorizing  the  attorney  for 
the  defendant  to  dismiss  the  case,  the  presentation  of  said  paper 
to  the  court  by  the  attorney  for  the  defendant  is  not  forbidden.* 


Healy,  ]37  Cal.  474,  70  Pac.  455;  Mc- 
Cabe  V.  Healy,  138  Cal.  81,  70  Pac. 
1008. 

Connecticut. — ]\ler\vin  v.  Richard- 
son, 52  Conn.  223. 

Indiana. — Price  v.  Grand  Rapids  & 
I.  R.  Co.,  18  Ind.  137. 

Iowa. — Humphrey  v.  Darlington,  15 
la.  207;  State  v.  Lewis,  96  la.  286, 
65  N.  W.  295. 

Kentucky. — Graves  v.  Long  Assoc. 
87  Ky.  441,  9  S.  W.  297. 

Louisiana. — Fly  i".  Noble,  37  La. 
Ann.  667. 

Massachusetts. — Elastic  Tip  Co.  v. 
Graham.  185  :\lass.  597,  71  N.  E.  117; 
Peckliam  r.  lUunsey,  208  Mass.  112, 
94  X.  E.  290. 

.1/!c/(K/a».— Schali  r.  I'.ly.  43  Mich. 
401,  5  X.  W.  1)51. 

Missouri. —  Klynii  r.  Xcosho.  114 
.Mo.  567,  21  S.  \V.  903;  I'.ciil  /■.  I'ricsl, 
10  Mo.  Apji.  543;  Stone  i;.  Slattcry. 
71    Mo.  .\pp.  442. 

\rl)rnsl:a. — .Mnssclinaii  r.  liarkcr, 
2fi  Xeli.  737.  42  X.   W  .  7.")!i. 

\ew    York. —  I^ongcnecUer    r.    Kulin. 


126  App.  Div.  254,  110  X.  Y.  S.  517. 

Pennsylvania. — Egolf  Building  & 
Loan  Assoc,  r.  Cleaver,  228  Pa.  St. 
60,  77  Atl.  245. 

Texas. — Ingenhuett  V.  Hunt,  15 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  248,  39  S.  W.  310; 
Deering  v.  Hurt,  2  S.  W.  42. 

Termon^.— Hobart  v.  Vail,  80  Vt. 
152,  66  Atl.  820.  See  also  Middle- 
bury  Bank   r.  Rutland,  33  Vt.  414. 

Washington. — INIessenger  v.  Mur- 
phy. 33  Wash.  353,  74  Pac.  480. 

Wisconsin. — Harrigan  r.  Gilchrist, 
121  Wis.  127,  99  N.  W.  909. 

4  Hall  r.  Brackett,  60  X.  H.  215. 
And  sre  tlie  cases  cited  infra,  under 
§  176. 

5  Cuioii  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  r. 
P.iU'hanan.  100  Ind.  03;  Lawall  r. 
(^roman,  ISO  Pa.  J?t.  532,  37  Atl.  98, 
57  Am.  St.  Rep.  662. 

6  II.. 1, art  r.  \'ail,  SO  Vt.  152.  66 
Atl.    Si^O. 

7  Sweeney  r.  Kerr.  25  S.  W.  273, 
16  Ky.  L.  I{ei).  33. 

8  Ex  p.  Randall,  149  Ala.  640,  42 
So.  S70. 


§    175]         DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  813 

An  attorney  in  whose  hands  a  debt  has  been  placed  for  eollection, 
may  act  as  the  attorney  in  fact  of  the  debtor  to  confess  judii-nient, 
the  debtor  being  advised  of  the  extent  of  the  attorney's  aiiency  for 
the  creditor,  and  executing  the  power  to  avoid  costs  of  snit.^  Xor 
is  a  mere  stockholder  prechided  from  sustaining  the  relation  of 
attorney  to  the  company  whose  stock  he  holds.^"  An  attorney  hohl- 
ing  a  mortgage  second  to  that  of  his  client,  violates  no  professional 
obligation  by  redeeming  after  the  foreclosure  of  his  client's  mort- 
gage, and  his  retirement  from  the  case.'^^  So,  also,  the  attorney  for 
the  mortgagee  in  a  foreclosure  suit  may  properly  appear  as  attor- 
ney for  a  purchaser  of  the  equity  of  redemption. ^^  A  receiver  may 
without  impropriety  be  represented  by  the  attorney  of  a  party, 
where  the  interests  of  the  receiver  and  such  party  are  not  adverse. ^^ 
While  judicial  policy  discourages  the  practice  of  attorneys  acting 
at  the  same  time  for  the  bankrupt  and  his  creditors,  the  l)ankru])tcy 
act  does  not  forbid  a  creditor  to  employ  the  attorney  who  acted  as 
such  for  the  bankrupt  in  the  preparation  of  his  consent  to  an  ad- 
judication.-'* And  where  there  are  no  conflicting  interests  between 
a  bankrupt  and  the  trustee,  a  contract  between  the  bankrupt's  at- 
torney and  such  trustee  for  services  in  collecting  debts  due  the 
bankrupt  estate  is  not  against  public  policy.^^     So,  the  attorney  for 

9Wassell    r.   Reardon,    11   Ark.  705,  But   see  Heffron   f.   Flower.   35    111. 

54  Am.  Doc.  245.  -^PP-  200,  wherein  it  was  lield  tliat  a 

But  see  Askew  r.  Goddard,   17  111.  receiver  appointed  in  proceedings  for 

App.  .377.  wlicrein  it  was  held  tliat  an  the     dissolution      of     a     partnersliip 

attorney   signing   a   cognovit  under  a  ^^^o^il^^   "«*    employ    the   attorney   for 

warrant  authorizing  any  attorney  at  ^^^  complainants   in  the  proceedings, 

law  to  confess  judgment  for  a  certain  ^^'^  ^^^^  J"  W-  Butler  Paper  Co.  r.  ,). 

,                     1 1       xj.           )     f  L-  Regan   Printing   Co.,   35   111.  App 

sum   and  a  reasonable   attorneys  fee  ^       '^                        c                       t^  i 


cannot,  at  the  same  time,  act  as  at- 
torney for   plaintiff. 

10  Barker   r.   Cairo,   etc.,   R.   Co.,   3 


152;     Warren     v.     Sprague,     4    Edw. 
N.  Y.)    416. 
14  In  re  Kaufman,  170  Fed.  552. 


But  see  In  re  Wooten.  118  Fed.  670, 

Thomp.  &  C.    (N.  Y.)    329.  ,        ...                •  i  +,    +  +i        ++ 

'                '             '  wherein  it  was  said  tliat  tlie  attornev 

11  Sheehan  ^  v.    Farwell,     135    Mich.  ^^^  ^  bankrupt  should  not  also  act  for 
jJb,   J/    j^.  \V.   7-0.  ^   creditor   whose   claim    is   contested. 

12  Wallace    r.   Furber,   62    Ind.    103.  15  Reyes    v.    McKerrow,    ISO    Mass. 
l3Smitli  r.  New  York  Consol.  Stage  261,  62  N.  E.  259.  wlierein   attention 

Co.,  28  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  277,  18  Abb.  is    called    to    a   rule    of    court    which 

Pr.  419.  now  forbids  this  practice. 


314  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§    17G 

a  bankrupt  may  also  appear  in  the  proceedings  for  a  creditor  on  a 


§  176.  Test  as  to  Whether  Interests  Are  Conflicting. — 

The  question  as  to  whether  there  is  any  inconsistency  in  represent- 
ing particnhir  interests  must  depend  hirgely  upon  the  facts  pre- 
sented by  each  case ;  the  best  means  of  determining  the  existence 
of  a  conflict  is  whether,  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,  an  attor- 
ney's duty  to  one  interest  will  compel  him  to  assail  or  neglect  the 
other ;  if  so,  he  must  decline  to  represent  one  or  the  other."  The 
test  of  inconsistency  is  not  whether  the  attorney  has  ever  been  re- 
tained by  the  party  against  whom  he  proposes  to  appear,  but 
wdiether  his  accepting  the  new  retainer  will  require  him,  in  for- 
warding the  interests  of  his  new  client,  to  do  anything  which  will 
injuriously  affect  his  former  client  in  any  matter  in  which  he  for- 
merly represented  him,  and  whether  he  will  be  called  upon,  in  his 
new  relation,  to  use  against  his  former  client  any  knowledge  or 
information  acquired  through  their  former  connection.^*  It  may 
prove  to  be  a  very  difficult  matter  to  determine,  as  concrete  ques- 
tions arise,  whether  lawyers  can  or  cannot  safely  act  for  a  new 
client ;  whether  in  doing  so  they  may  not  unintentionally,  and  per- 
ha])s  unconsciously,  put  at  his  service  confidential  information  ob- 
tained from  the  old  client  by  reason  of  the  professional  relation- 

16  In    re    Morgan,    8    Ben.    232,    17  I'eniisylrania. — Lawall    r.    Groman, 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,798.  3  80  Pa.  St.  532,  37  Atl.  98,  57  Am.  St. 

^t  Arkansas. — Beal,  etc.,  Dry  Goods  Rep.  662. 

Co.  V.  Barton,  80  Ark.  326,  97  S.  W.  Vermont.— Uohart   r.   Vail,    80   Vt. 

58.  152,  66  Atl.  820. 

California. — fones    r.    Lainont,    118  Wisconsin. — Harrigan    r.    Gilelirist, 

Cal.  499,  50  Pac.  766,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  121   Wis.  127,  99  N.  W.  909. 

251.  18  In    re    Boone,    83    Fed.   944:    T^i- 

h'rnlurln/. — Graves      c.      Long.      87  laiiee,    etc.,    Mfg.    Co.    r.    Ilaberman 

Ky.  441,  9  S.  W.  297.  Mfg.  Co.,  93  Fed.  197;  Price  r.  Grand 

.1/ if/nV/nn.— Cadillac   Stat.-    I'.ank    r.  Hapids.    etc.,    R.    Co..    18    Tnd.    137; 

WCxfur.l     (  irciiit     .didi.'.',     139     Mich.  Bent     r.     I'riest,     10    Mo.    App.    543; 

126.  102  .\.  W.  (;(;7.  Messcng.T   /•.  Murpliy,  33   Wash.  353, 

Mississippi. — Si)iid<s     r.    Davis,    32  74  Pac.  480. 
.MisH.  154. 

.Missouri. — Stone     r.     Slattciy,     71 
Mo.   App.  442. 


I 


§    177]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  815 

ship.  Ordinarily  the  court  will  assiinie  that  counsel  will  decide 
that  question  for  themselves  in  scrupulous  conformity  to  their  pro- 
fessional obligations.  The  path  of  nnquestionahle  safety,  however, 
would  be  found  in  abstention  from  participation,  active  or  merely 
as  advisers,  in  any  business  which  may,  even  by  unkind  critics,  be 
considered  adverse  to  their  clients'  interests.^^  For  if  they  become 
actively  engaged  for  an  interest  hostile  to  that  of  a  former  client, 
they  will  be  likely  to  iind  their  progress  impeded  by  pitfalls  or 
quagmires  into  which  they  may  stumble,  or  by  whicli  they  may  be 
besmirched.^" 

§  177.  Effect  of  Former  Retainer.  —  An  attorney  is  not  per- 
mitted, in  serving  a  new  client  as  against  a  former  one,  to  do  any- 
thing which  will  injuriously  affect  the  former  client  in  any  matter 
in  which  the  attorney  formerly  represented  him,^  thongh  the  rela- 
tion of  attorney  and  client  between  them  has  been  terminated,^  and 
the  new  employment  is  in  a  different  case ;  ^  nor  can  he  nse  against 
him  any  knowledge  or  information  gained  through  their  former 
connection.^  An  attorney  is  never  allowed  to  change  sides  in  the 
same  cause,  though  at  different  trials.^  The  good  of  the  profession, 
as  well  as  the  safety  of  clients,  demands  the  recognition  and  en- 
forcement of  these  rules ;  ®  indeed  it  is  not  assuming  too  much  to 
say  that  the  proper  administration  of  justice  would  soon  cease  if 
attorneys  were  permitted,  after  having  received  full,  frank  and  free 

19  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Haber-  2  in  re  Boone,  8.3  Fed.  944. 
man  ^Ug.  Co.,  93  Fed.  197.  3  In  re  Boone,  8.3  Fed.  944. 

20  Lalance,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co.   v.  Haber-  4  U.  S.  r.  Coston,  38  Fed.  24;  In  re 
man  Mfg.  Co.,  93  Fed.  ]f)7.  Boone,  83   Fed.  944;   People   v.  Spen- 

1  In  re  Boone,  83  Fed.  944:   Valen-  cer,   61  Cal.   128;   In  re  Stephens,  77 

tine  r.  Stewart,  15   Cal.  387;    Weide-  Cal.  357,   19  Pac.  646,  84  Cal.  77,  24 

kind  r.  Tuolumne  County  Water  Co.,  Pac.  46;   Hatch   r.   Fogerty,   40  How. 

74  Cal.   386,   19   Pac.   173,   5  Am.  St.  Pr.    (N.  Y.)    492,   10   Abb.   Pr.  N.   S. 

Rep.    445;    Com.    v.    Gibbs,    4    Gray  147,  33  Super.  Ct.  160. 

(Mass.)    146;    Sherwood  V.  Saratoga,  5  Price  v.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

etc.,  R.   Co.,    15    Barb.    (N.  Y.)    650;  18  Ind.  137.     And  see  the  cases  cited 

Hatch     V.     Fogerty,     40     How.     Pr.  under  the  general  rule,  supra,  §  174. 

(N.  Y.)  492;  Peirce  v.  Palmer,  31  R.  estate  r.  Halstead,  73   la.  37G,   35 

I.  432,  Ann.  Cas.   19126  181,  77  Atl.  N.  W.  457. 
201. 


316  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.         [§    178 

disclosures  from  clients,  to  go  to  the  other  side,  no  matter  what 
the  excuse  which  might  be  offered.' 

§  178.  Agreement    Permitting    Adverse    Employment. — 

Of  an  agreement  terminating  the  relations  between  a  client  and 
his  attorney,  and  by  which  the  client  released  the  attorney  "from 
all  rights,  burdens,  obligations,  and  privileges  which  appertain  to 
his  said  employment,''  and  consented  that  he  might  engage  his 
services  "pro  and  con  as  he  may  see  fit,"  the  court  said:  "In 
determining  that  the  present  contract  of  release  is  void,  I  am 
guided  by  reasons  of  public  policy,  and  by  considerations  which 
relate  to  the  due  and  orderly  administration  of  justice,  to  the  honor 
and  purity  of  the  profession,  to  the  protection  of  clients,  and  to 
the  dignity  of  the  court  itself.  Keeping  these  considerations  in 
mind,  I  am  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  a  contract,  or  waiver,  or 
release,  or  consent,  or  by  whatever  name  it  may  be  styled,  by 
which  it  is  sought  to  release  an  attorney  from  all  the  duties,  bur- 
dens, obligations,  and  privileges  incident  to  the  relation,  is  totally 
inoperative  and  void,  and  contrary  to  public  policy.  It  is  violative 
of  every  principle  of  professional  honor  and  integrity.  It  is  abso- 
lutely inconsistent  with  the  duties,  burdens,  and  obligations  which 
an  attorney  assumes  when  he  enters  into  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client,  and,  in  fact,  is  subversive  of  them.  To  uphold  such  a 
release  as  valid  and  effectual  would  be  fraught  with  the  most  per- 
nicious consequences  both  to  tlie  public  and  to  the  profession.  It 
would  give  rise  to  most  unscrujiulous  and  unprofessional  practices, 
and  the  rankest  frauds  could  be  perpetrated  upon  unsuspecting  and 
improvident  clients,  and,  ])erhaps,  on  the  courts  themselves.  A 
client,  in  poor  circumstances,  could  be  imposed  u])on  by  a  rich  ad- 
versary. The  inevitable  result  of  such  a  doctrine  would  be  to  de- 
grade tlic  profession  and  l)i-iiigthe  courts  themselves  into  disrepute. 
The  fact  tbat  a  client  may  bo  willing  to  enter  into  such  a  contract 
does  not  jiisiil'y  the  court  in  npliolding  it,  nor  can  the  client's  con- 
sent or  connivance  shelter  an  attorney  fi-oni  improfessional  con- 
duct. Courts  owe  a  dnty  to  themselves,  to  the  public,  and  to  the 
profession  Avliich  the  temerity  or  improvidence  of  clients  cannot 

7  wiutcoiiii)  r.  (  oiii.T.  i;;:i  hi.  :]i(),      no  N.  W.  836. 


§     ITS.)]  UEALI^'GS     BKTWKKX     ATTOKNEY    AND    CLIEXT.  317 

snporsedo."  '  This  character  of  agreement,  however,  is  not  to  bo 
confused  with  the  right  of  an  attorney  to  act  in  his  client's  interest, 
for  one  against  whom  he  has  been  retained ;  as,  for  instance,  where 
the  adverse  party,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  agrees  to  some 
amicable  adjustment  of  the  litigation.^  But  even  here  due  care 
should  be  taken  that  the  adverse  party  is  fully  aware  of  the  sig- 
nificance of  his  actions ;  and  often  it  will  be  found  wise  to  insist 
on  his  having  independent  counsel.  So  too,  a  contract  between  an 
attorney  and  a  third  person,  whereby  the  latter  was  to  pay  the  for- 
mer a  commission  for  procuring  a  sale  to  him  of  the  client's  prop- 
erty, is  not  void,  where  the  client  consented  to  the  arrangement.^" 

§  179.  Effect     of     Accepting     Adverse     Employment. — 

Where  an  attorney  improperly  assumes  to  act  for  both  parties,  the 
injured  litigant  may,  on  discovery  of  the  fact,  repudiate  the  acts 
of  his  alleged  attorney,^^  and  rescind  the  contract  of  employment.^^ 
The  law  will  not  tolerate  the  same  counsel  to  appear  upon  both 
sides  of  an  adversary  proceeding  even  colorably,  and  in  general 
will  not  permit  a  judgment  so  affected  to  stand,  if  made  the  sub- 
ject of  exception  in  due  time  by  the  parties  injured  thereby.^' 
Thus  a  proceeding  to  set  aside  a  judgment  will  be  dismissed  where 
the  same  counsel  jointly  make  the  motion  representing  both  par- 
ties to  the  action.^*  And  where  the  attorney  for  executors  and  de- 
visees also  represents  a  claimant  and  procures  judgment  for  the 
latter,  such  judgment  will  not  be  allowed  to  prevail,  even  though 

8  Per  Morrow,  Circuit  Judge,  in  In       445;     Martindale    r.    Brock,    41    Md. 
re  Boone,  83  Fed.  944.  573  ;   Moore  v.  Gidney,  75  N.  C.  34. 

9  See  supra,  §  175.  Compare  Shoemake  v.  Smith,  80  la. 

10  Culver  V.  Nester,  116  Mich.  191,  655,    45    N.   W.    744,    wherein    it    was 
74  N.  W.  532,  4  Detroit  Leg.  N.  1105.  held    that   the    fact   that   certain    at- 

11  Michigan  Stove   Co.   v.   Harwood  torneys  first  appeared  for  one  of  the 
Hardware  Co.,   71  111.  App.  240.  defendants,   and,  in   violation   of  pro- 

12  Merchants'   Nat.  Bank  r.  Eustis,  fessional     ethics,    went    over    to    the 
8  Tex.  Civ.  App.  350,  28  S.  W.  227.  cause  of  tlie  plaintiff,  is  no  ground  for 

13  In    re    Cowdery,    69    Cal.    32,    10  reversing  a  judgment  in  favor  of  tlie 
Pac.  47,  58  Am.  Rep.  545;   Weidekind  plaintiff. 

V.   Tuolumne    County    Water    Co.,    74  14  Johnson    r.    Johnson,    141    N.    C. 

Cal.  386,  19  Pac.  173,  5  Am.  St.  Ptep.       91,  53  S.  E.  623. 


118 


DEALINGS    BKIWEKX     ATTOKXEY    AND    CLIENT. 


[§   180 


no  fraud  was  intended  or  practiced. ■^^  A  referee's  report  in  favor 
of  a  party  to  an  action  pending  before  him,  will  be  set  aside  where 
it  appears  that  he  was  retained,  as  counsel,  in  other  litigation,  by 
the  party  in  whose  favor  he  decided  ;  and,  in  such  case,  it  is  im- 
material whether  the  decision  of  the  referee  was.  or  Avas  not,  af- 
fected by  such  retainer. ^^  Where  the  solicitor  for  the  plaintiff 
acknowledges  service  of  process  for  the  defendant,  the  court  will 
refuse  to  enter  up  judgment  on  the  pleadings. ^''^  So  also  a  con- 
tract entered  into  between  an  attorney  and  a  party  whose  interests 
are  adverse  to  those  of  his  client,  is  void  as  against  public  policy 
and  cannot  be  enforced. ^^  The  representation  of  conflicting  inter- 
ests as  a  ground  for  disbarment  will  be  considered  hereafter. ^^ 

§  180.  Restraining  Attorney  from  Acting  Adversely  to 
Client.  —  Where  an  attorney  so  far  forgets,  or  igiiores,  his  pro- 
fessional duty  as  to  engage  his  services  to  one  whose  interests  are 
necessarily  in  conflict  with  those  of  his  client,  or  in  whose  employ- 
ment he  will  be  in  position  to  take  undue  advantage  of  the  confiden- 
tial communications  of  such  client,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  power 
of  the  court  to  enter  and  enforce  an  order  restraining  the  attorney 
from  so  acting ;  ^°  and  this  power  can  well  be  predicated,  not  alone 
on  the  fact  that  an  attorney  is  an  officer  of  the  court, ^  but  as  -well 
on  the  fact  that  such  conduct  is  antagonistic  to  the  due  and  orderly 
administration  of  justice.^  The  trial  court  not  only  has  a  right, 
but  it  is  its  duty,  to  forbid  an  attorney  from  changing  sides  in  the 


15  Arrington  r.  Arrington,  llfl  N. 
C.  183,  2]  S.  E.  181.  See  also  Oooch 
7-.  Peebles,  105  N.  C.  411.  11  S.  E. 
415. 

16  ,Stebl)ins  v.  Brown,  05  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)    272. 

17  Sleeper  v.  Slccixr,  1  llarnly 
(Ohio)    5.30. 

18  Valentine  v.  Stewart,  15  Cal. 
387;  De  Cells  v.  Brunson.  53  Cal. 
372;  McArthur  v.  Fry,  10  Kan.  233; 
^facDonald  r.  Wagner,  5  Mo.  App. 
5(1:  Herrick  r.  Catlcy,  1  Daly  (N.  Y.) 
.'■)!.:;.  30  How.  Pr.  20S ;  Oir  r.  Tanner, 
12  R.  I.  94. 


19  See  infra,  §  798. 

20  In  re  Cowdery,  69  Cal.  32.  10 
Pac.  47,  58  Am.  Rop.  545;  Weidekind 
/".  Tuohumie  County  Water  Co.,  74 
Cal.  386.  10  Pac.  173.  5  Am.  St.  Rep. 
445;  Bowman  r.  Bowman,  153  Ind. 
498,  55  N.  E.  422:  Musselman  r.  Bar- 
ker, 26  Neb.  737,  42  N.  W.  759. 

1  See  supra,  ^  3. 

8  Weidekind  /'.  Tuolumne  County 
Water  Co.,  74  Cal.  380.  19  Pac.  173,  5 
Am.  St.  Rep.  445:  Gaulden  r.  St.ate, 
11  Ca.  47;  Nickels  v.  Griirin,  1  Wasii. 
Tcr.  374. 


I 


§    181]  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  319 

same  suit,  though  at  different  trials;  for  to  do  otherwise  would 
defeat  tlie  very  purpose  for  which  courts  were  organized.'  An 
attorney  will  not,  of  course,  be  restrained  where  the  services  which 
he  intends  to  render  to  another  are  not  adverse  to  his  former 
client.'*  So,  an  attorney  who  has  withdrawn  from  a  case,  believino' 
in  good  faith,  that  the  litigation  is  ended,  will  not,  in  the  event  of 
its  continuance,  be  enjoined  from  accepting  a  retainer  from  par- 
ties having  an  interest  adverse  to  tlieir  former  client,  or  from  dis- 
(dosing  information  acquired  in  their  professional  capacity  from 
such  client.  In  the  absence  of  any  showing  to  the  contrary,  the 
court  will  assume  that  such  attorneys  will  observe  all  the  obliga- 
tions of  honorable  members  of  the  bar.^ 

§  181.  Civil  and  Criminal  Proceedings  Growing  Out  of 
Same  Subject-Matter.  — The  rule  that  an  attorney  cannot  repre- 
sent conflicting  interests  applies  with  undiminished  force  whether 
the  parties  represented,  or  proposed  to  be  represented,  pro  and 
con,  were  formerly  involved  in  a  criminal  prosecution  the  subject- 
matter 'of  which  later  becomes  the  bone  of  contention  in  a  civil 
action,  or  where  the  original  employment  was  in  the  civil,  and 
the  subsequent  retainer  in  the  criminal,  litigation.^  But  where  an 
attorney  who  had  been  employed  to  defend  a  prosecution  for  bas- 
tardy, appeared  for  the  plaintiff  in  an  action  brought  by  the  prose- 
cuting witness  in  the  bastardy  proceedings,  against  the  same  de- 
fendant, for  damages  for  the  breach  of  a  promise  of  marriage,  it 
was  held  that  'Svhile  this  record  may  not  be  considered  as  commen- 
datory of  the  course  sought  to  be  pursued  by  the  attorney  named," 
yet  his  former  retainer  did  not  ])revent  him  from  so  appearing.''' 
This  subject  has  been  more  fully  considered  in  connection  with  the 
discussion  relating  to  district  and  prosecuting  attorneys.* 

3  Weidekind  f.  Tuolumne  County  6  State  r.  Rocker.  130  la.  239,  106 
Water  Co.,  74  Cal.  386,  19  Pac.  173.  5  X.  W.  045 :  Com.  r.  Gibbs,  4  Gray 
Am.  St.  Rep.  44.5;  Wilson  r.  State.  16  (Mass.)  146;  People  v.  Hurst.  41 
Tnd.  392.  Mich.  328,  1  N.  W.  1027. 

4  Price  r.  Grand  Rapids,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  '  Musselman  r.  Barker,  26  Neb. 
18  Ind.   137.     See  supra,  §  176.  737.  42  N.  W.  759. 

5  Lalance    &    Grosjean    Mfg.    Co.   v.  8  See  infra,  §  708. 
Haberman  Mfg.  Co.,  93  Fed.  197. 


320  DEALINGS    BETWEEN    ATTORNEY    AND    CLIENT.  [§     182 

§  182.  Waiver  of  Objection.  —  Where  an  attorney  appears 
for  one  whose  interests  are  adverse  to  those  of  his  client,  an  objec- 
tion should  be  entered  thereto  at  the  first  reasonable  opportnnity, 
otherwise  it  will  be  presumed  to  have  been  waived.^  Certainly  one 
cannot  sit  idly  by,  omit  to  bring  the  facts  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
court,  take  the  chances  on  obtaining  a  favorable  verdict,  and,  if 
unsuccessful,  set  up  in  another  court,  in  a  suit  upon  the  judgment, 
that  such  judgment  was  procured  by  fraud. ^° 

9  In  re  Premier  Cycle  Mfg.  Co.,  70  lO  Cox   v.   Barnes,   45  Neb,   172,   63 

Conn.    473,    39    Atl.    800;    Webber    v.       N.  W.  394. 
Barry,   66   Mich.   327,  33  N.  W.  289, 
11  Am.  St.  Rep.  466. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

LAW    PARTNERSHIPS— ATTORNEYS    AS    WITNESSES— ADMISSIONS 
BY  ATTORNEYS  AS  EVIDENCE. 

Law  Partnerships. 

§  J  83.  Generally. 

184.  Retainer  of  Law  Firms. 

185.  Dissolution. 

Attorneys  as  Witnesses. 

186.  General  Rule. 

187.  Rule  in  Delaware. 

188.  Rule   in  Georc^ia. 

189.  When  Called  by  Adverse  Party. 

190.  Necessity  of  Withdrawing  from  Cause. 

191.  Proof  of  Foreign  Laws  by  Attorney. 

192.  Evidence  of  Validity  of  Title. 

Admissions   hi/  Attorneys  as   Evidence. 

193.  General  Rule. 

194.  Within  Scope  of  Attorney's  Authority. 

195.  Formality  and  Distinctness. 

196.  During  Employment. 

197.  Admissions  by  Attorney's  Clerks. 

198.  Competency  of  Admission  on  Subsequent  Trial. 

Law  Partnerships. 

§   183.   Generally.  — The  copartnership  of  members  of  the  bar 
for  the  purpose  of  practicing  law  as  a  firm  is  not  only  lawful,'^ 

1  Smith  r.  Hill,  13  Ark.  173.     Com-  two    joining    themselves    together    in 

pare  Willson    r.   Willson,   5   N.  J.   L.  this    way,    though    they    both    be    li- 

791,  wherein  it  was  said  that  the  New  censed  attorneys,  cannot  bring  them- 

Jersey  statute  "declares,  no  man  shall  selves    within    this    description,    and 

prosecute  his  suit  except  by  himself  or  make    one   licensed   attorney   at   law. 

by  a  licensed  attorney  at  law.     Now,  The  attorneys  are  considered  as  con- 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I. -21.       321 


\-2-2 


LAW    PARTXERSIIIPS. 


[§   183 


but  in  many  instances  desirable,  especially  in  the  large  cities.^ 
Such  firms  are  subject,  inter  sesc,  to  the  same  rights,  duties,  and 
liabilities  as  other  partnerships,  and  are  governed  bv  the  same  rules 
of  law.^  Thus  notice  to  one  member  of  the  firm  is  notice  to  all, 
Avhere  it  relates  to  the  firm  business.'*     So,  also,  the  acts  and  ad- 


fidential  officers  of  the  court:  they 
receive  fees,  and  are  liable  to  pen- 
alties as  such ;  and  may  be  disbarred 
for  malpractice.  Can  two,  then, 
so  conjoin  themselves  together  as 
to  receive  the  privileges  of  one,  and 
be  subject  to  the  penalties  of  one? 
If  tliere  be  malpractice  in  tlie  con- 
ducting of  a  cause,  shall  they  both  be 
disbarred?  and  if  not,  which  of  them? 
Our  statute  does  not  contemplate 
such  partnerships  in  official  duties, 
and  therefore  they  cannot  lawfully 
exist.  But  though  this  be  irregular, 
and  might  have  been  taken  advan- 
tage of  at  the  proper  stage  of  the 
suit,  yet  after  judgment  it  is  cer- 
tainly too  late." 

2  See  generally  the  cases  cited 
throughout  this  section. 

A  person  employed  to  collect  cer- 
tain claims,  under  a  contract  en- 
titling him  to  a  percentage  of  the 
amount  collected,  is  not  a  partner 
of  an  attorney  whom  he  procures  to 
prepare,  file,  and  prove  tlie  claims  be- 
fore a  certain  court,  agreeing  to  pay 
liim  a  certain  per  cent  of  the  amount 
recovered.  Grapel  r.  Hodges,  112  N. 
Y.  419,  20  N.  E.  542,  affirming  49 
llun   107,  1    X.  Y.  S.  82.i. 

An  unlicensed  person  may  not  be- 
come a  partner  of  a  law  firm.  Dunn 
r.  O'Ki-illy,  11    U.   C.   C.   P.  404. 

3.lr/,an.sa«.— Smith  V.  Hill.  13  .\rk. 
17:5. 

/o/ca.— Starr  r.  Case,  oO  Iowa  IIM, 
13  N.  W.  045 ;  Roth  r.  ]{<)ics,  13'J 
Iowa   2.").'5,    115  N.    W.    'X'.O. 


Ijouisiana. — Jones  /•.  Caperton,  15 
La.  Ann.  475. 

Massachusetts. — Holbrook  v.  Nes- 
bitt,  163  Mass.  120,  39  N.  E.  794. 

New  York. — Warner  r.  Griswold,  8 
Wend.   665. 

Pennsylvania. — Livingston  i\  Cox, 
6  Pa.  St.  360. 

One  of  two  law  partners  has  no 
authority  to  accept  for  the  firm  an 
agency  for  the  mere  sale  of  real  es- 
tate. Robertson  r.  Chapman,  152  U. 
S.  673,  14  S.  Ct.  741,  38  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)    592. 

Proof  of  money  paid  to  a  partner 
of  one  who  was  tlie  creditor's  attor- 
ney, but  not  to  him,  is  not  evidence 
of  payment  to  his  principal.  Brown 
V.  Bull,  3  Mass.  211. 

Unfair  Settlement  icith  One  Part- 
ner.— Settlement  hy  one  partner  will 
not  conclude  tlie  firm,  if  obviously 
unreasonable,  or  if  the  consideration, 
other  than  money,  moves  primarily 
to  the  personal  benefit  of  the  settling 
partner.  In  sucli  cases  the  opposite 
party  is  so  chargeable  with  notice 
of  want  of  authority  tliat  he  is  held 
to  act  subject  to  tlie  actual  consent 
or  approval  of  the  absent  partner. 
Remington  V.  Eastern  R.  Co..  109 
Wis.  154,  84  N.  W.  S98.  85  N.  W. 
321. 

4  Wittenbrock  (;.  Parker,  102  Cal. 
!)3,  30  Pac.  374,  41  Am.  St.  Rep.  172, 
24  L.R.A.  197;  Ganzer  r.  Scliimiauer, 
10  Neb.  638,  59  N.  W.  98;  McFar- 
laiid   r.   Crary,  8  Cow.    (N.   Y.)    253; 


§  1S3] 


LAW    PARTAlillSlIIPS. 


323 


missions  of  one  of  the  partners,  made  in  relation  to  and  in  the 
course  of  the  firm's  r(>£iiilar  business,  are  binding  upon  the  firm.^ 
They  are  noutradiui*'  partnerships,  however,^  and  therefore  one 
member  of  the  firm  cannot  bind  his  copartners  by  the  making,  ac- 
ceptance, or  indorsement  of  commercial  paper,  even  for  a  partner- 
ship indebtedness,'  unless  he  has  express  authority  therefor  from 


Grcon  r.  Milbank,  3  Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)    ]38. 

But  see  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Bennett,  35  Kan.  395,  11  Pac.  155, 
holding  that  where  an  attorney,  who 
is  a  member  of  a  law  firm  composed 
of  three  persons,  receives  from  a 
railway  company  a  draft  to  deliver 
to  a  third  person  in  the  settlement 
of  a  lawsuit,  and  in  such  suit  none 
of  the  members  of  the  firm  repre- 
sented the  railway  company,  or  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  case,  a  no- 
tice of  an  attorney's  lien  served  upon 
the  members  of  the  firm,  other  than 
the  one  who  actually  received  the 
draft,  will  not  be  notice  upon  the 
attornejT  receiving  the  draft,  or  make 
such  attorney  receiving  the  draft 
chargeable  with  negligence  in  deliv- 
ering the  draft  according  to  his  in- 
structions, before  the  attorney  serv- 
ing notice  of  his  lien  has  been  paid 
or  satisfied. 

5  Alliance  Bank  v.  Tucker,  15  W. 
R.  (Eng.)  992,  17  L.  T.  X.  S.  13; 
Smith  r.  Hill,  13  Ark.  173:  Dyer  v. 
Sutherland,  75  111.  583;  Fitch  v. 
Stamps,  6  How.  (Miss.)  487;  Bright 
V.  Ross,  11  Smcd.  &  M.  (Miss.)  289; 
Green  v.  Milbank,  3  Abb.  X.  Cas.  (N. 
Y.)    138. 

A  member  of  a  law  firm  acts  within 
the  scope  of  his  powers  in  furnishing 
a  surety  on  an  attachment  bond  for 
a  nonresident  client,  and  receiving 
money   from   the   client   to  indemnify 


such  surety.  l'"ornes  v.  Wright.  91 
Iowa  392,  59  N.  W.  51. 

6  England. — Hedley    v.    Bainbridge, 

3  Q.  B.  316,  43  E,  C.  L.  752;  Levy 
V.  Pyne,  C.  &  M.  453,  41  E.  C.  L. 
249 ;  Harman  V.  Johnson,  2  El.  & 
Bl.  61,  75  E.  C.  L.  61;  Forster  i: 
Mackreth,  L.  R.  2  Exch.  163;  Gar- 
land  v.   Jacomb,  L.  R.   8  Exch.   216. 

Canada. — Wilson  r.  Brown,  6  Ont. 
App.  411;  Workman  c.  McKinstry,  21 
U.  C.  Q.   B.   623. 

Arkansas. — Alley  v.  Eowcn-Morrill 
Co.,  76  Ark.  4,  6  Ann.  Cas.  127,  88 
S.  W.  838,  113  Am.  St.  Rep.  73. 

Florida. — Friend  v.  Duryee,  17  Fla. 
Ill,  35  Am.  Rep.  89. 

fleorgia. — Miller  r.  Hines,  15  Ga. 
197. 

Kentucky. — Breckenridge  v.  Shrieve, 

4  Dana  375. 

Massachusetts. — ]Marsh  v.  Gold,  2 
Pick.    285. 

Missouri. — St.  Louis  Third  Nat. 
Bank  v.  Snyder.   10  Mo.  App.  211. 

Tennessee. — Pooley  t".  Whitmore,  10 
Heisk.   629,   27   Am.  Rep.   733. 

Wisconsin. — Smith  v.  Sloan,  37 
Wis.    285,    19   Am.   Rep.    757. 

7  Hedley  v.  Bainbridge,  3  Q.  B.  316, 
43  E.  C.  L.  752;  Friend  v.  Duryee, 
17  Fla.  Ill,  35  Am.  Rep.  89;  Wor- 
ster  r.  Forbush,  171  Mass.  423,  50 
N.  E.  936;  Smith  v.  Sloan,  37  Wis. 
285,  19  Am.  Rep.  757  (reviewing  the 
earlier    authorities). 

"We  gather  from  all  of  the  author- 


324: 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§  184 


bis  eopartuer,  or  unless  the  giving  of  such  instruments  is  necessary 
to  the  carrying  on  of  the  firm  business,  or  is  usual  in  similar  part- 
nerships ;  and  the  burden  is  upon  the  holder  of  such  an  obligation, 
who  sues  upon  it,  to  prove  such  authority,  necessity  or  usage.^  Law 
partnerships  are,  of  course,  subject  to  special  regulation  by  statute 
or  rule  of  court ;  ^  thus  the  partner  of  the  judge  of  a  minor  court 
may  be  prohibited  from  practicing  before  him.^°  The  liability  of 
the  firm  for  the  acts  of  the  individual  partners,^^  and  also  matters 
relating  to  compensation,^^  have  been  considered  elsewhere  as  indi- 
cated. 

§   184.  Retainer  of  Law  Firms. —  The    retainer    of    a   law 
firm,  as  such,  is  equivalent  to  the  retainer  of  all  of  its  members ;  ^' 


ities  that  the  distinction  between  a 
trading  and  a  nontrading  partner- 
ship, in  respect  to  the  power  of  a 
partner  to  bind  his  copartner  by  ne- 
gotiable instruments,  is  not  limited 
to  a  mere  presumption  of  such  au- 
thority in  one  case,  and  the  absence 
of  such  presumption  in  the  other,  as 
the  learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiff 
argued;  but  we  think,  and  must  so 
hold,  that  one  partner  in  a  nontrad- 
ing partnership  cannot  bind  hi"  co- 
partner by  a  bill  or  note  drawn,  ac- 
cepted or  indorsed  by  him  in  the  name 
of  the  firm,  not  even  for  a  debt  whicli 
the  firm  owes."  Smith  r.  Sloan,  37 
Wis.  -ZS."),  ]9  Am.  Rep.   7.")7. 

Compare  Livingston  r.  Cox,  (i  Pa. 
St.  360,  wherein  it  was  lield  that 
partnerships  between  attorneys  are 
subject  to  the  incidents  to  mercantile 
partnersliips;  and  one  partner  is  lia- 
ble upon  tiie  contracts  made  by  the 
other  within  tlie  scope  of  tiie  pari- 
nersliip  business,  and  for  his  negli- 
gence ill  resjM'ct  to  a  ])artnersliip  con- 
tract. 

8  Friend  r.  Dm  y.'c,  17  Ma.  Ill,  35 
Am.  Rep.  H9;  Siiiiili  r.  Sloan,  37 
Wis.   28.'5,    I!>    .Ami.    Kcp.   7:>7. 

In    Worster    r.    [''orliii'^li,    171    Mass. 


423.  50  N.  E.  936,  the  court  said: 
"An  attorney  at  law  who  is  a  mem- 
ber of  a  partnership  of  lawyers  has 
no  implied  authority  by  reason  of  the 
partnership  to  borrow  money  on  the 
credit  of  the  partnership,  or  to  sign 
or  indorse  a  negotiable  promissory 
note  in  the  name  of  the  partnersliip; 
and  it  is  immaterial  that  the  money 
borrowed  is  used  to  pay  the  regular 
and  ordinary  expenses  of  the  part- 
nership, or  that  tlie  holder  of  the 
note  is  a  bona  fide  purchaser  of  the 
note  for  value  before  its  maturity. 
Any  person  taking  a  prom- 
issory note  signed  or  indorsed  in 
the  name  of  a  partnership  by  one 
partner  in  order  to  hold  the  ether 
partners,  has  the  burden  of  proving 
that  the  partner  who  signed  the  I'ame 
was  authorized  by  the  other  partners 
to    sign    or    indorse    notes." 

9  Fox  r.  .Tack.son,  S  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
355;  In  re  Woodward,  4  .Tohns.  (N. 
V.)    2S!). 

10  Fox   r.  .Jackson,  8   Harb.    (N.  Y.) 

11  See    infra,    §    292. 

12  See  infra,  §§  471-475, 

13  Smith  ?•.  Hill.  13  Ark.  174;  Lup- 
toii    /■.   Taylor,   .3!)    liid.    .\pp.   412,   78 


§  184] 


LAW    PARTNEKSIIIPS. 


325 


the  client  cannot  demand  that  any  particular  member  of  the  firm 
shall  render  the  services,  or  conduct  the  litigation,  for  which  the 
firm  was  retained,  but  either  partner  may  act.^*  The  contract  is 
joint,  and  continues  to  the  termination  of  the  suit,  and  neither  part- 
ner can  be  released  from  the  obligation,  either  by  a  dissolution  of 
the  firm,  or  by  any  other  act  or  agreement  among  themselves ;  ^^ 
therefore  one  member  cannot,  on  dissolution  of  the  partnership 
by  death  or  otherwise,  refuse  to  carry  to  completion  executory  con- 
tracts with  clients  which  were  in  force  at  the  date  of  dissolution.^^ 
So,  the  retainer  of  one  of  the  partners,  in  the  absence  of  any  stipu- 
lation that  he,  alone,  shall  attend  to  the  client's  business,  is  a  re- 
tainer of  the  firm ;  ^'  and  the  client  is  entitled  to  have  the  benefit 
of  their  united  skill  and  judgment  in  the  management  of  his  busi- 
ness.^* If  the  client  pays  one  member  of  the  firm,  he  pays  all." 
Retainers  generally  have  been  considered  heretofore.^" 


N.  E.  689,  79  N.  E.  523;  Eggleston 
V.  Boardman,  37  Mich.  14;  Ostrander 
r.  Capitol  Invest.,  etc.,  Assoc,  130 
Mich.  312,  89  N.  W.  964;  De  Vail  v. 
De  Vail,  57  Ore.  128,  109  Pac.  755, 
110   Pac.    705. 

In  the  absence  of  an  express  agree- 
ment to  the  contrary,  any  profes- 
sional services  rendered  by  a  mem- 
ber of  a  firm  of  lawyers  should  be 
presumed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  tlie 
firm.  MacFarland  v.  Altschuler,  77 
Xeb.   138,  108  N.  W.   151. 

Where  one  member  of  a  law  part- 
nership obtained  possession  of  a  let- 
ter containing  an  authority  to  take 
care  of  the  writer's  interests,  directed 
to  the  other  partner,  and  acted  under 
the  instructions  contained  in  the  let- 
ter, it  was  held  tliat  the  writer  was 
bound  by  the  act  of  the  partner  as 
much  so  as  if  the  other  partner  liad 
received  the  letter,  and  acted  upon  it. 
Beck  V.  Martin,  2  McJNIul.  L.  ( S.  C.) 
260. 

14  Clifton  r.  Clark,  83  Miss.  410,  1 
Ann.  Cas.  396,  36  So.  251,  102  Am. 
St.  Rep.  458,  66  L.R.A.  821. 


But  see  Schneible  r.  Travelers'  Ins. 
Co.,  36  Misc.  522,  73  N.  Y.  S.  955, 
wherein  it  was  said  that  when  the 
partnership  is  dissolved,  a  firm  client 
has  a  right  to  determine  which  jiart- 
ner  shall  continue  the  conduct  of  an 
action  already  begun  for  him  by  the 
firm. 

15  Tomlinson  r.  Polsley,  31  W.  Va. 
108,  5  S.  E.  457. 

16  Walker  v.  Goodrich,  16  111.  341; 
Clifton  r.  Clark,  83  Miss.  446,  1  Ann. 
Cas.  396,  36  So.  251,  102  Am.  St. 
Rep.   458,  66  L.R.A.  821. 

The  removal  from  the  country  of 
one  of  a  firm  of  attorneys  does  not 
permit  tlie  other  member  to  refuse 
to  carry  out  the  firm's  contracts  to 
prosecute  suits.  -Johnson  v.  Bright, 
15   111.   464. 

17  Harris  v.  Pearce,  5  111.  App.  622; 
Lockwood  V.  Dillenbeck,  104  Ajjp. 
Div.  71,  93  X.  Y.  S.  321. 

18  Smith  r.  Brittenham,  109  111. 
540. 

l9^^'illiams   r.  ilore,  63   Cal.  50. 
20  See  supra,  §§  133-136. 


326  LAW    PAilT2s^EESliIPS.  [§    185 

§  185.  Dissolution. — The  dissolution  of  a  law  partnership 
may  be  effected  in  the  same  manner,  and  is  governed  by  the  same 
rules,  as  other  partnerships.^  Where  an  experienced  attorney  en- 
ters into  partnership  with  a  younger  man  in  consideration  of  a 
premium,  and  thereafter  excludes  him  from  a  knowledge  of  the 
details  of  the  business  and  treats  him  with  discourtesy,  the  younger 
lawyer  may  bring  an  action  for  dissolution,  and  the  court  may 
award  him  a  money  judgment  for  his  share  of  the  premium ;  but 
such  money  judgment  residts  only  from  the  exercise  of  equitable 
jurisdiction  in  determining  whether  there  should  be  a  dissolution.. 
The  premium  should,  in  such  case,  be  apportioned  on  the  basis  of 
the  actual,  and  of  the  agreed,  duration  of  the  term,  the  senior  part- 
ner to  retain  pro  tanto  for  the  time  elapsed,  the  junior  partner  to 
be  repaid  the  balance.^  While  the  dissolution  of  the  firm  does  not, 
of  itself,  terminate  contracts  of  employment  between  the  firm  and 
clients  thereof,^  it  seems  that,  in  such  case,  the  client  has  the  option 
of  abrogating  the  contract,  settling  for  the  services  rendered,  and 
employing  other  counsel,  or  one  of  the  former  partners  ;*  but  if 
he  fails  to  take  advantage  of  such  option,  and  permits  a  former 
member  of  the  firm  to  complete  the  contract,  he  will  be  liable  for 
the  full  amount  of  compensation  originally  agreed  upon.^  On  dis- 
solution the  former  partners,  or  those  of  them  who  survive  and  the 
representatives  of  the  others,  may,  and  nsuallj^  do,  adjust  all  part- 
nership business  amicably.  Should  there  be  a  disagreement,  how- 
ever, an  action  for  an  accounting  will  lie  as  in  other  partnership 
cases. ^     Matter  relating  to  compensation  as  between  partners,  on 

IMay  dissolve  by  agreement.     Rob-  Ann.   Cas.    .3{)6,   36   So.   251,   102   Am. 

bins   V.   Steele,    (la.)    135  N.   W.  411.  St.   Rep.   458,   06   L.R.A.    821;    Bessie 

And    see    the   cases   cited    tliroiic,'liout  r.    Xortliern    Pac.    R.    Co.,    14    N.    D. 

this  section.  614.   lO.J  X.  W.  i);5(;. 

8  Hoyt  V.  Easton,  40  Misc.   264,  81  6   1     lairi/cr    irho    rohintarili/   ahan- 

N.   Y.    S.   914.  dons    a    partnership    and    becomes    a 

8  See  supra,   §    184.  judfH',   is  not  chargeable  with   any  of 

4  Clifton   V.   Clark,   83   Miss.  446,   1  the  expenses  of  his  partner,  after  the 

Ann.    Cas.   306,   36   So.   251,    102   Am.  dissolution,  in  prosecuting  cases  com- 

St.  Hep.  458,  66  L.R.A.  821;  Schneible  nienced    before    the    {)artnership    was 

r.   Tiavelers*    Ins.   Co.,   36   Misc.   522,  dissolved;    and  money  afterward*?  col- 

7.''.    X.    \.    S.    !t55.  lected    liy    him    oi'    paid    (o    him    hy    his 

Sec  also  supra,  §    140.  former    partner    as    his    .sliare    of    the 

6  Clifton   V.   Clark,   83   Miss.  446,    1  fees    earned    after    llie    dissolution    of 


§    186]  LAW    PAIITNEKSHIPS.  327 

the  dissolution  of  the  firm,  has  been  considered  elsewhere.' 


Attorneys  as  Witnesses. 

§  186.  General  Rule.  —  An  attorney  or  counselor  at  law  is 
not,  as  a  g-eneral  rule,  disqualified  as  a  witness ;  *  and  where  there 
is  no  violation  of  the  rule  as  to  privileged  conimnnications,  which 
has  been  considered  in  the  preceding  chapter,^  counsel  may  be 
called  and  compelled  to  testify  as  to  any  matter,  within  their  knowl- 
edge, which  is  relevant  to  the  issue. ^°    Even  a  prosecuting  attorney 


the 'partnership,  in  cases  commenced 
before  tiie  dissolution,  cannot  be  re- 
covered by  the  partner  in  an  action 
for  an  accounting.  Isenhart  r.  Hazen, 
]0  Kan.  App.  577  mem.,  63  Pac.  451. 

7  Sec   infra,  §   472. 

8  Rowland  r.  Plummer,  50  Ala. 
182;  Harless  r.  Harless  144  Ind.  196, 
41  N.  E.  592;  Shanglmessy  v.  Fogg, 
15  La.  Ann.  330;  In  re  Normand's 
Estate,  88  Neb.  767,  130  N.  W.  571; 
State  r.  Challis,  75  X.  H.  492,  76 
Atl.  643;  Hardenburgh  v.  Fish,  61 
App.  Div.  333,  70  N.  Y.  S.  415;  Gra- 
ham V.  Chapman,  e'tc.  Works,  145 
App.  Div.  62,  129  N.  Y.  S.  323;  At- 
lantic, etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Atlantic,  etc., 
Co.,  147  X.  C.  368,  15  Ann.  Cas. 
363,  61  S.  E.  185.  125  Am.  St.  Rep. 
550,  23  L.R.A.(N.S.)  223;  Sargent 
V.  Johns,  206  Pa.  St.  386,  55  Atl. 
1051. 

9  See  supra,  §§  92-132. 

10  United  Utates. — French  v.  Hall, 
119  U.  S.  152,  7  S.  Ct.  170,  30  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  375;  Baldwin  v.  National 
Hedge,  etc.,  Co.,  73  Fed.  574,  39  U. 
S.  App.  162,  19  C.  C.  A.  575.  And 
Bee  Patton  v.  Taylor,  7  How.  132.  12 
U.  S.    (L.   ed.)    637. 

Alabama. — Sowell  v.  Brewton  Bank, 


119   Ala.   92,   24   So.  585. 

California. — People  v.  Hamberg,  84 
Cal.  468,  24  Pac.  298. 

Colorado. — Sholine  v.  Harris,  22 
Colo.  App.  63,  123  Pac.  330. 

Connecticut. — Smith  r.  Huntington, 
1  Root  226 ;  Kaesar  r.  Bloomer,  85 
Conn.  209,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  710,  82 
Atl.  112.  And  see  Carrington  r.  Hola- 
bird,  17  Conn.  530. 

Illinois. — Stratton  r.  Henderson, 
26  111.  69;  Morgan  v.  Roberts,  38  111. 
65 ;  Wilkinson  r.  People,  226  111.  135, 
80  N.  E.  699;  Bishop  r.  Hilliard,  227 
111.  382,  81  N.  E.  403;  O'Donoghue 
r.  Title  Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.,  79  111. 
App.  263. 

Indiana. — Inlow  v.  Hughes,  38  Ind. 
App.   375,   76  N.   E.   763. 

Iowa. — Walsh  r.  Murphy,  2  G. 
Greene  227;  Abbott  r.  Striblen,  6  la. 
191. 

Kentucly.—HaM  v.  Renfro,  3  Met. 
51 ;  Roseberry  v.  Wilson,  68  S.  W. 
417. 

Louisiana. — ^lenendez  r.  Larionda, 
3  Mart.  256;  Caulker  r.  Banks,  3 
Mart.  N.  S.  532;  Blanc  r.  Forgay,  5 
La.  Ann.  695. 

Mari/land. — Beatty  r.  Davis,  9  Gill 
211;  Forbes  v.  Perrie,  1  Har.  &  J. 
109. 


328 


LAW    PAKTNEKSIlli'S. 


[§  186 


may  be  so  called.^  And  the  fact  that  the  attorney  is  a  party  and  is 
trvino:  his  own  ease  does  not  affect  the  rule.^  In  the  earlier  cases 
it  appears  that  attorneys  were  frequently  held  to  be  incompetent, 
as  witnesses,  because  of  being  interested  in  the  subject-matter  of 
the  litigation,'  especially  where  they  had  an  immediate,  direct, 
and  legal  interest  therein.*    At  the  present  day,  however,  disquali- 


Massachusetts. — Potter  v.  Ware,  1 
Cush.  519. 

Missouri. — State  v.  Shour,  196  Mo. 
202,  95  S.  W.  405. 

New  Jersey. — Folly  o.  Smith,  12  N. 
J.   L.    139. 

New  Mexico. — Beall  v.  Territory,  1 
N.   M.   507. 

Xciv  York. — Gaul  v.  Groat,  1  Cow. 
113;  Tullock  c.  Cunningham,  1  Cow. 
256;  Pixley  v.  Butts,  2  Cow.  421; 
Robinson  v.  Dauchy,  3  Barb.  20 ; 
Sherman  v.  Scott,  27  Hun  331.  See 
also  Little  f.  Keon,  1  N.  Y.  Code  Rep. 
4. 

North  Carolina. — Slocum  r.  Newby, 
5  N.  C.  423;  State  v.  Woodside,  31 
N.   C.  496. 

Ohio.— Cox   V.   Hill,   3   Oliio   412. 

Pennsylvania. — Frear  v.  Drinker,  8 
Pa.  St.  520;  Bell  v.  Bell,  12  Pa.  St. 
235 ;  Johns  V.  Bolton,  12  Pa.  St.  339 ; 
Linton  i:  Com.,  46  Pa.  St.  294;  Fol- 
lansbee  v.  Walker,  72  Pa.  St.  228,  13 
Am.  Rep.  C71  ;  Perry  (".  Dicken,  105 
Pa.  St.  83,  51  Am.  Rep.  181. 

South  Dakota. — Alexander  v.  Ran- 
som, 16  S.  D.  302,  92  N.  W.  418. 

Texas. — Mealer  v.  State,  32  Tex. 
Crim.    102,   22   S.   W.    142. 

r<«//.-  .M.'I.iiicii  r.  (;iHispi.',  19 
rtah    137,  ;')()    I'uc   (iSO. 

\(rtiii>nt. —  lloltoii  /■.  I'.rdWii.  18 
Vt.    224,    46    Am.    I).c.    14S. 

Virffinia. —  Itfu  /.  'IKittrj-.  211  (watt. 
585. 

Wixconsni. — (OiiiHilly  r.  Sti'aw,  53 
Wih.    (il'.i,    11     \.    W.    17:    Tucker    r. 


Finch,  66  Wis.  17,  27  N.  W.  817.     And 
see   the    cases    cited    in    note. 

1  People  V.  Hamburg,  84  Cal.  468, 
24  Pac.  298;  State  v.  Wilmbusse,  8 
Idaho  608,  70  Pac.  849.  See  also 
supra,    §    104. 

2  Thresher  v.  Stonington  Sav.  Bank, 
68  Conn.  201,  36  Atl.  38;  Kaeser  v. 
Bloomer,  85  Conn.  209,  Ann.  Cas. 
1913B  710,  82  Atl.   112. 

3  Com.  V.  Moore,  5  J.  J.  Marsh. 
(Ky.)  655;  English  v.  Latham,  3 
Mart.  N.  S.  (La.)  88;  Hall  v.  Acklen, 
9  La.  Ann.  219;  Chadwick  f.  Upton, 
3  Pick.  (Mass.)  442;  Meserve  v. 
Hicks,  24  X.  H.  295;  Jones  v.  Sav- 
age, 6  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  658;  Dowell  f. 
Dowell,  3  Head  (Tenn.)  502;  Dailey 
V.  Monday,  32  Tex.   141. 

^Alabama. — McGehee  c.  Hansell,  13 
Ala.  1 7 ;  Morrow  v.  Parkman,  14  Ala. 
769;  Quarles  v.  Waldron,  20  Ala.  217. 

Kentucky. — Southard  V.  Gushing, 
11   B.  Mon.   344. 

Lowismna.-^Grant's  Succession,  14 
La.    Ann.    807. 

Maine. — McLaine  v.  Bachelor,  8 
Me.  324;  Steward  v.  Riggs,  10  Me. 
467. 

Massachusetts. —  Philliius  r.  Bridge, 
1  1    Mass.   242. 

Mississippi. — Arthur  r.  Mitcliell,  10 
Snied.  &  M.  326;  Dunlap  r.  Edwards, 
29    Miss.  41. 

\(ir  lor/,-.- Uraiuligec  r.  Hale,  13 
.loiiiis.  12.");  Caniir  c.  Myers,  15  Joiins. 
2-16;  Little  r.  McKeon,  1  Sandf.  607; 
(  liiillVe   r.  Thomas,   7    (]ow.   358. 


§  18T] 


LAW    PAET^^EKSH1PS. 


329 


tication  on  the  ground  of  interest  has  been  abolished  in  practically 
every  jurisdiction,  even  in  criminal  cases,  as  to  the  parties  them- 
selves; and  where  this  objection  would  not  be  available  as  to  the 
litigant,  it  would  not,  of  course,  be  elfective  as  to  his  attorney.* 
The  only  objections  which  could  be  made  to  such  evidence  now 
wonld  go  to  its  weight,  and  not  to  its  competency.^ 

§  187.  Rule  in  Delaware.  —  In  Delaware  an  attorney  cannot 
testify,  as  a  witness  for  his  client,  to  any  fact  which  came  to  his 
knowledge  during  that  connection,'  although  he  has  since,  by  leave 
of  court,   withdrawn  from  the  suit.^     The   rule  is  based  on  the 


Pennsylcania.  —  Orphans'  Ct.  r. 
Woodbnrn,  7  W.  &  S.  162;  McLaugh- 
lin r.  Shields.  ]2  Pa.  St.  283;  Ed- 
wards r.  Goldsmith,  16  Pa.  St.  43; 
Braine    r.   Spalding,    52    Pa.    St.    247. 

South  Carolina. — Reid  V.  ('olcock,  1 
Xott  &  M.  392,  9  Am.  Dec.  729; 
Price  V.  Moses,  10  Rich.  L.  4.)4.  See 
also  Simonton  r.  Yongue,  3  Strobh. 
L.   538. 

Tennessee. — Benton  r.  Henry,  2 
Coldw.  83. 

Vermont. — Phelps  f.  Hall.  2  Tyler 
399;   Catlin  r.  Allen.  17  Vt.  1.58. 

In  Sprigg  r.  Beaman.  0  La.  59,  the 
court  held  that  an  attorney  was  not 
a  competent  witness  on  the  ground 
of  interest  where  the  attorney  testi- 
fied that  he  had  not  stipulated  for 
his  fees,  but  that  it  was  his  custom 
to  charge  less  if  the  case  was  unsuc- 
cessful. See  also  Reeves  v.  Burton, 
fi  Mart.  X.  S.    (La.)    283. 

The  following  cases  hold  that  even 
where  the  attorney's  fee  depends  upon 
the  recovery  in  the  action  he  is  a 
competent  witness.  Jackson  c.  Ben- 
nett, 98  Ga.  lOG,  26  S.  E.  53;  Mott 
r.  Bernard,  07  Mo.  App.  265,  70  S. 
W.  1093:  Newman  r.  Bradley,  1  Dall. 
(Pa.)     240,    1    U.    S.     (L.    ed.)     118; 


:\Iiles  r.  O'Hara,  1  S.  &  R.  (Pa.) 
32:  Boulden  r.  Hebel,  17  S.  &  R. 
(Pa.)    312. 

In  Central  Branch  LTnion  Pac.  E. 
Co.  V.  Andrews,  41  Kan.  370,  21  Pac. 
276,  the  court,  in  holding  that  an  at- 
torney was  competent  to  testify  wlien 
his  compensation  was  contingent  upon 
the  success  of  the  trial,  said:  '"The 
interest  he  may  have  in  tlie  result 
goes  to  his  credibility,  but  does  not 
afTect  his  competency." 

Tn  En-ffjand,  it  was  once  considered 
ground  for  a  new  trial  that  the  at- 
torney for  the  successful  party  testi- 
fied in  his  behalf.  Dunn  r.  Packwood, 
11  Jur.  242.  See  also  Stones  r.  Bacon, 
11  Jur.  44,  1  Saund.  &  C.  248.  Those 
cases  have  been  disapproved,  however, 
in  Cobbett  v.  Hudson,  1  El.  &  Bl.  11, 
72  E.  C.  L.  11. 

5  Wigmore  on  Evidence,  §  1911    ( 1 ) . 

6  Willis  V.  West,  60  Ga.  613;  Glanz 
)•.  Ziabek,  233  111.  22,  84  N.  E.  36: 
Beatty  v.  Davis,  9  Gill  (Md.)  211; 
Thon  r.  Rochester  R.  Co.,  83  Hun  443, 
30  X.  Y.  S.  620. 

7  Andrews  r.  Thompson,  1  Houst. 
(Del.)    522. 

8  Andrews  v.  Thompson,  1  Houst. 
(Del.)    522. 


330 


LAW    PARTNEitSIilPS. 


[§   188 


ground  of  public  policv.^  So,  too,  the  disqualification  has  been 
held  to  extend  to  associate  counsel/"  and  to  a  student  who  assisted 
his  j)receptor  in  the  preparation  of  a  case  for  trial. ■'^  But  as  to 
information  acquired  by  the  attorney  independently  of  the  relation 
of  attorney  and  client,  the  rule  seems  to  be  relaxed ;  thus  it  has 
been  hekl  that  the  counsel  of  a  complainant  may  prove  service  of 
a  notice  on  the  defendant,^^  and  that  the  counsel  of  one  of  the  liti- 
gants may  give  evidence  of  an  admission  made  by  the  adverse 
party.^^ 

§  188.  Rule  in  Georgia.  —  The  competency  of  an  attorney  as 
a  witness  in  Georgia  is  regulated  by  statute.  The  enactment  now 
in  force  provides:  "'ISTo  attorney  shall  be  competent  or  compellable 
to  testify  in  any  court  in  this  State,  for  or  against  his  client,  to  any 
matter  or  thing,  knowledge  of  which  he  may  have  acquired  from 
his  client,  by  virtue  of  his  relations  as  attorney,  or  by  reason  of 
the  anticipated  employment  of  him  as  attorney,  but  shall  be  both 
competent  and  compellable  to  testify,  for  or  against  his  client,  as 
to  any  matter  or  thing,  knowledge  of  which  he  may  have  acquired 
in  anv  other  manner."  ^* 


9  Wallace  v.  Wilmington  &  X.  R. 
Co.,  8  Houst.   (Del.)  529,  18  Atl.  818. 

10  Pritchard  r.  Henderson,  3  Penn. 
(Del.)  128,  50  Atl.  217;  Wallace  r. 
Wilmington  &  X.  R.  Co.,  8  Houst. 
(Del.)    529,   18   Atl.   818. 

11  W'allace  r.  Wilmington  &  X.  R. 
Co.,  8  Houst.   (Del.)   529,  18  Atl.  818. 

12  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  r.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  I'Hcctric  R.  Co.,  (Del.) 
77    Atl.   756. 

13  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  r.  Wil- 
mington, etc.,  Electric  R.  Co.,  (Del.) 
77   Atl.  750. 

14  Sec.  5860  Ga.  Code  of  1910.  Sec 
al.so  Wiiiis  r.  West,  60  C.a.  01. S;  Pliil- 
a(lcl|>liia  Fire  Assoc,  r.  I'^lcming,  78 
C.ii.  7:i."5,  3  S.  E.  420;  Skrlli<.  r.  .lames. 
SI  C.A.  419,  8  S.  !•:.  007:  .fiicI<son  r. 
r.rnn.-tt,  98  Ca.  I0(!,  2ii  S.  K.  5:!; 
O'Brien   r.   Spalding,    102   (ii\.  490,  31 


S.  E.  100,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  202;  Stone 
V.  Minter,  111  Ga.  45,  36  S.  E.  321, 
50  L.R.A.  356;  Smith  r.  Wilkins,  113 
Ga.  140,  38  S.  E.  400;  Harklivss  r. 
Smith,  115  Ga.  350.  41  S.  E.  034. 
The  act  of  1850  provided  that  it 
should  not  be  lawful  for  an  attorney 
to  give  testimony  of  any  matter  or 
thing,  either  for  or  against  his  client, 
the  knowledge  of  which  he  may  have 
acquired  from  his  client,  or  during 
the  existence  and  by  reason  of  the 
relationship  of  client  and  attorney. 
Riley  v.  Jolinston,  13  Ga.  260;  Wat- 
kins  V.  Smith,  17  Ga.  68;  McDougald 
r.  Lane,  18  Ga.  444;  Causey  r.  Wiley, 
27  Ga.  444;  Osborn  V.  Herron,  2S  Ga. 
313;  Sharmnn  r.  Morton,  31  Ga.  34. 
S.'c  also  Swift  r.  Perry,  13  Ga.  138; 
Collins  r.  .Tohnson,  10  Ga.  458; 
Chuichill   r.  Corker,  25  Ga.  479. 


§§   189,  190] 


LAW    PAKTNEKSUIPS, 


331 


§  189.  When  Called  by  Adverse  Party.  —  The  impropriotv 
which  is  recognized  in  the  conduct  of  an  attorney  who  volunteers 
to  aid  the  cause  of  his  client  as  a  witness  in  his  behalf  is  one  which 
attaches  to  himself,  and  is  not  present  when  he  is  requisitioned  by 
his  adversary. ■^^  A  due  recognition,  however,  of  the  status  of  an 
attorney,  representing  his  client  in  the  trial  of  a  cause,  demands 
that  he  should  not  be  required  by  adverse  counsel  to  take  the  wit- 
ness stand  unless  there  is  a  reasonable  necessity  for  such  action.^® 

§  190.  Necessity  of  Withdrawing  from  Cause.  —  As  a 
mere  matter  of  propriety,  an  attorney  should  not  testify  on  behalf 
of  his  client,  in  a  case  wherein  he  appears  as  counsel.  The  prac- 
tice, or  habit,  of  doing  so  deserves,  and  has  received,  severe  condem- 
nation.^' It  is  recognized,  of  course,  that  there  are  instances  where 
counsel  cannot  avoid  testifying  on  behalf  of  the  client,  as  where 
facts  are  so  peculiarly  within  his  knowledge,  that  his  evidence  be- 
comes a  matter  of  necessity  in  order  that  justice  may  be  done.^^ 


15  England. — Bevan  v.  Waters.  M. 
&  M.  235,  22  E.  C.  L.  301;  Levy  v. 
Pope,  M.  &  M.  410,  22  E.  C.  L.  343. 

Arkansas. — Milan  v.  State,  24  Ark. 
346. 

Connecticut. — Loomis  V.  Norman 
Printers'  Supply  Co.,  81  Conn.  343, 
71    Atl.    358. 

Florida. — Buckmaster  v.  Kelley,  15 
Fla.   180. 

Indiana. — Oliver  v.  Pate,  43  Ind. 
132;  Lloyd  v.  Davis,  2  Ind.  App.  170, 
28  N.  E.  232;  Model  Clothing  House 
V.  Hirsch,  42  Ind.  App.  270,  85  X.  E. 
719. 

Kansas. — State  v.  Tabor,  63  Kan. 
542,  66  Pac.  237,  55  L.R.A.  231. 

Kentucky.— Bishofi  v.  Com.,  123 
Ky.  340,  96  S.  W.  538. 

Louisiana. — Cox  v.  Williams,  5 
Mart.  X.  S.  139;  State  v.  Cook,  23 
La.   Ann.   347. 

Missouri. — State  V.  Hedgepeth,  125 
Mo.  14,  28  S.  W.  160. 


Pennsylvania. — Levers  V.  Van  Bus- 
kirk,  4  Pa.  St.  309. 

Tennessee. — Rundle  v.  Foster,  3 
Tenn.   Ch.   658. 

16  Loomis  I".  Norman,  etc.,  Co.,  81 
Conn.  343,  71   Atl.  358. 

17  Wilkinson  r.  People,  226  111.  135, 

80  N.    E.    699;    Chicago    Union   Trac- 
tion  Co.   V.  Ertrachter,  228   111.   114, 

81  N.  E.  816;  Frear  v.  Drinker,  8  Pa. 
St.  521. 

isOnstott  V.  Edel,  232  111.  201,  13 
Ann.  Cas.  28,  83  N.  E.  806;  Wicks  r. 
Wheeler,  139  111.  App.  412,  415,  416; 
Reavely  v.  Harris,  145  111.  App.  545, 
affirmed  239  111.  526,  88  N.  E.  238; 
Kintz  r.  R.  J.  Menz  Lumber  Co.,  47 
Ind.  App.  475,  94  N.  E.  802;  In  re 
Xormand's  Estate,  88  Neb.  767,  130 
N.  W.  571;  McLaren  r.  Gillispie,  19 
Utah  137,  56  Pac.  680;  Connolly  V. 
Straw,  53  Wis.  649,  11  N.  W.  17. 


332 


LAW     PARTNEKSIllPS. 


[§  190 


In  such  cases,  however,  the  only  honorable  course  for  an  attorney 
to  pursue  is  to  withdraw  from  the  cause,  as  counsel, ^^  as  soon  as 


is  Connecticut. — Kaeser  r.  Bloomer, 
85  Conn.  209,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  710, 
82  Atl.  112. 

Illinois. — Morgan  v.  Roberts,  38 
111.  65 :  Ross  V.  Demoss,  45  111.  447 ; 
Wilkinson  v.  People,  220  111.  135,  80 
X.  E.  699;  Bishop  ;;.  Hilliard,  227 
111.  382,  81  X.  E.  403;  Chicago  Union 
iraction  Co.  v.  Ertrachter,  228  111. 
114,  81  X.  E.  816;  Onstott  V.  Edel, 
232  111.  201,  13  Ann.  Cas.  28.  8.?  X. 
E.  806;  Glanz  v.  Ziabek,  233  111.  22, 
84  X.  E.  30;  O'Donoghue  v.  Title 
Guarantee,  etc.,  Co.,  79  111.  App.  263;. 
Wicks  v.  Wheeler,  139  111.  App.  412. 

Iowa. — Walsh  r.  Murphy,  2  G. 
Greene    227. 

Louisiana. — Blanc  r.  Forgay,  5  La. 
Ann.   695. 

Nebraska. — Wilson  r.  Wilson,  89 
Xeb.  749,  132  X.  W.  401. 

Pennsylvania. — Bell  r.  Bell,  12  Pa. 
St.  235;  McLaughlin  v.  Shields,  12 
Pa.  St.  283;  FoUansbee  r.  Walker,  72 
Pa.  St.  228,  13  Am.  Rep.  671;  Perry 
/•.  Dicken,  105  Pa.  St.  83,  51  Am. 
Rep.    181. 

Houth  Carolina. — Price  r.  Moses, 
10   Rich.   L.   454. 

Texas. — Yardley  r.  State,  50  Tex. 
Crim.  044,  TOO  S.  W.  399,  123  Am. 
St.   Rep.  809. 

f/e«//.— McLaren  r.  (;illispic,  1!) 
rtah   137.  50  Pac.   080. 

In  Ilarkins's  Succession,  2  La.  Ann. 
923,  the  court  .said:  "We  take  tiiis 
occasion  fo  dhscrxc,  iis  mm  iin|ii'i  ;i1  i\<' 
act  of  judicial  duty,  tliat  altliough  an 
attorney  at  law  is  under  our  laws  a 
competent  witness  for  liis  client,  yet 
flic  pdsitidii  of  nil  :itti)rney  tlill,--  iil'- 
fering  himself  as  a  witness  is  one  of 
extreme   delicacy    to   the   witness   and 


to  the  court;  and  that  it  is  always  de- 
sirable, for  the  harmony  of  the  pro- 
fession, the  independence  of  the  bench, 
and  the  public  confidence  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice,  that  an  at- 
torney should  not  be  a  witness,  ex- 
cept in  extreme  cases,  when  all  other' 
means  of  proof  are  impossible;  and 
then,  as  it  seems  to  us,  the  attorney 
should  withdraw  from  professional 
participation  in  the  cause.  So  far 
as  the  bench  is  concerned,  it  is  a  duty 
of  the  most  painful  nature  to  be 
called  upon,  as  we  sometimes  have 
been,  to  weigh  the  evidence  of  a  mem- 
ber of  the  bar." 

In  Potter  v.  Ware,  1  Cush.  (^lass.) 
519,  the  court  said:  "In  most  cases, 
counsel  cannot  testify  for  their  clients 
without  subjecting  tlicmselves  to  just 
re[ 'ehension.  But  there  may  be  cases 
in  which  they  can  do  it,  not  only 
without  dishonor,  but  in  which  it  is 
their  duty  to  do  it.  Sucli  cases,  how- 
ever, are  rare;  and  whenever  they 
occui',  tliey  necessarih'  cause  great 
pain  to  counsel  of  the  right  spirit." 

In  Ross  r.  Demoss,  45  111.  447,  449, 
the  court  said:  "It  is  of  doubtful 
professional  propriety  for  an  attor- 
ney to  become  a  witness  for  Ills  client, 
without  first  entiicly  witlidrawing 
from  any  fiuiliei-  connection  with 
the  case;  and  an  attorney  occupying 
the  attitude  of  botli  witness  and  at- 
torney for  his  client,  subjects  liis  tes- 
tiniiiny   to  criticism   if   not   suspicion. 

.  .  While  the  profession  is  an 
honorable  one,  its  members  should  not 
foi'get  that  e\('n  they  may  so  act  as 
1o  lose  puidic  c(]nrulcnre  and  general 
resjK'cf."' 

In  ConiHdlv  r.  Str;.w,  53  Wi.s.  649, 


§  191] 


LAW    PARTNEBSIIIPS. 


333 


it  becomes  evident  to  him  that  his  testimony  will  be  required  on 
the  trial.^°  A  fortiori  it  is  improper  for  an  attorney  to  accept  a 
retainer  as  additional  counsel  in  a  case  for  a  party  who  will  prob- 
ably call  him  as  a  witness.^  But  this  rule  does  not  affect  the  com- 
petency of  the  attorney  to  testify ;  ^  nor,  apparently,  is  there  any 
rule  of  law  which  actually  compels  him  to  withdraw,'  or  which 
makes  his  failure  to  do  so  reversible  error.*  The  fact  that  a  wit- 
ness is  also  counsel  in  the  case  alfects  only  his  credibility.^  A  rule 
of  court  forbidding  an  attorney  who  has  given  testimony  from 
arguing  the  case  to  the  jury  is  not,  however,  unreasonable.^ 

§  191.  Proof  of  Foreign  Laws  by  Attorney.  — It  is  a  well- 
established  rule  that  the  testimony  of  a  lawyer  of  another  state  or 
country  is  admissible  to  prove  the  unwritten  or  common  law  of  that 
state  or  country.'    But  he  will  not  be  allowed  to  apply  the  law  to 


UN.  W.  17,  the  court  said:  "As  a 
general  rule,  no  doubt,  attorneys 
should  not  be  witnesses  for  their 
clients.  The  sentiment  of  the  pro- 
fession is  opposed  to  it,  and  for  very 
satisfactory  reasons;  yet  cases  may 
arise,  and  in  practice  often  do  arise, 
in  which  there  would  be  a  failure  of 
justice  should  tlie  attorney  withhold 
his  testimony.  ...  Of  course,  an 
attorney  should  not  accept  a  retainer 
if  he  knows  in  advance  that  he  will 
be  a  material  witness  for  the  party 
seeking  to  employ  him.  But  a  breach 
of  professional  ethics  in  this  respect 
does  not  necessarily  involve  moral 
turpitude  or  affect  the  credibility  of 
tlie  attorney  who  tlius  becomes  a  wit- 
ness for  his  client." 

20  Onstott  r.  Edel.  232  111.  201,  208, 
209,  13  Ann.  Cas.  28,  83  N.  E.  806. 

1  Flood  V.  Bollmeier,  (Iowa)  138  N. 
W.  1102. 

2  Payne  i:  Miller,  103  111.  442; 
Wilkinson  v.  People,  226  111.  135,  80 
N,  E.  699;  Reavely  v.  Harris,  239  111. 


526,  88  N.  E.  238 ;  Bartoletti  v.  Iloer- 
ner,  154  111.  App.  336. 

3Glanz  r.  Ziabek,  233  111.  22,  84 
N.  E.   36. 

4  Chicago  Union  Traction  Co.  r.  Er- 
trachter,  228  111.  114,  81  N.  E.  816. 

5  Wilkinson  r.  People,  226  111.  13.5, 
80  N.  E.  699;  People  r.  Wliite,  251 
111.  67,  95  N.  E.  1036;  Domm  r.  Hol- 
lenbeck,    142   111.   App.   439. 

In  such  case  as  in  all  other  cases, 
the  jury  may  consider  the  relations 
of  the  witness  to  the  parties  in  de- 
termining the  weight  which  should  be 
given  to  the  testimony.  The  court 
may  properly  so  instruct  tlie  jury  in 
any  case,  but  the  jury  should  not  be 
instructed  that  the  fact  that  an  at- 
torney testifies  as  a  witness  for  his 
client  necessarily  impairs  the  credi- 
bility of  the  witness.  Connolly  v. 
Straw,  53  Wis.  649,  11  N.  W.  17. 

estate  v.  Gleim,  17  Mont.  17,  41 
Pac.  998,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  655,  31 
L.R.A.   294. 

7  United  States. — Pierce  v.  Indseth, 


334 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§  191 


the  facts  in  controversy.^    The  witness  must,  as  a  general  rule,  be 
an  attorney  or  counselor  at  law  of  the  state  or  country  concerning 


]0(3  U.  S.  546,  1  S.  Ct.  418,  27  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  254;  U.  S.  t'.  Gardiner,  2 
Havw.  &  H.  (D.  C.)  89,  25  Fed.  Cas. 
No.    15,186a. 

Alahama. — Inge  v.  Murphy,  10  Ala. 
885. 

Arkansas. — Union  Cent.  L.  Ins.  Co. 
r.  Caldwell,  68  Ark.  505,  58  S.  VV. 
355. 

loica. — Greason  r.  Davis,  9  la.  219. 

Kansas. — Brenner  v.  Luth,  28  Kan. 
581.  See  also  Palmer  v.  Hudson  River 
State  Hospital,  10  Kan.  App.  98,  61 
Pac.  506. 

Kentucky. — Tyler  v.  Trabue,  8  B. 
Mon.  .306;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V. 
Austin,  141  Ky.  722,  133  S.  W.  780. 

Louisiana. — See  Taylor  v.  Swett, 
3  La.  33,  22  Am.  Dec.  156. 

Maryland. — Wilson  v.  Carson,  12 
Md.  54;  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  c. 
(ileen,  28  Md.  323;  92  Am.  Dec.  688: 
Dimpfel  r.  Wilson,  107  Md.  329,  15 
Ann.  Cas.  753,  68  Atl.  561,  13  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)    1180. 

Massachusetts. — McRae  v.  Mattoon, 
13  Pick.  53. 

Michigan. — Kermott  v.  Aycr,  11 
Mich.  181;  Patterson  t;.  Kennedy,  122 
Mich.  343,  81  N.  W.  91,  6  Detroit 
Leg.   X.   767. 

Mi.'isouri. — See  Robertson  v.  Staed, 
135  Mo.  135,  36  S.  W.  610,  58  Am. 
St.  Rep.  569,  33  L.R.A.  203. 

Nebraska. — Barber  V.  Hildebrand, 
42  Neb.  400,  60  N.  W.  594. 

Oklahoma. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Lambert,  32  Okla.  665,  123  Pac. 
■128. 

I'ciinsyiruma. —  Dougherty  /".  Sny- 
der, 15  S.  &  R.  84,  16  Am.  Dec.  520. 


Virginia. — See  Norfolk,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.   Denny,  106  Va.  383,  56  S.  E.  321. 

Sucli  testimony  is  admissible  al- 
though there  is  a  decision  of  the  other 
jurisdiction  upon  the  point  in  ques- 
tion. McRae  v.  Mattoon.  13  Pick. 
(Mass.)    53. 

A  lawyer  of  anotlier  state  who  has 
deposed  that  he  is  familiar  with  the 
law  is  competent  to  give  evidence  as 
to  the  requisites  of  a  valid  marriage 
in  that  state.  Jackson  v.  Jackson, 
82  Md.  17,  33  Atl.  317,  34  L.R.A.  773. 

8  Jenness  V.  Simpson,  84  Vt.  127,  78 
Atl.  886,  wherein  it  was  said : 
"Where  experts  have  proved,  as  a 
fact,  the  law  of  a  sister  state  as  bear- 
ing on  a  contract  in  issue,  it  is  for 
the  court  to  apply  that  law  to  the 
contract  and  to  determine  the  tlfect 
of  the  contract  on  the  riglits  of  the 
parties." 

In  Hite  i;.  Keene,  149  Wis.  207, 
Ann.  Cas.  191 3D  251,  134  X.  W.  383, 
135  N.  W.  354,  where  Swiss  lawyers 
were  sworn  as  experts,  who  after  read- 
ing letters  written  in  English,  testi- 
fied in  answer  to  a  general  hypothe- 
tical question  that  the  letters  con- 
tained no  statement  of  a  precise  fact 
within  the  meaning  of  Swiss  Pen. 
Code,  §  303,  it  was  lield  that,  assum- 
ing tiiat  the  witnesses  understood  the 
I'higlisli  language,  the  question  called 
for  an  answer  of  the  same  l<intl  as 
if  tlie  hypothetical  question  had  em- 
liodied  the  facts  stated  in  the  letters, 
and  hence  that  tlie  evidence  was  com- 
petent. 


§  101] 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


335 


whoso  laws  he  is  called  to  testify ;  ^  thus  it  has  been  held  that  a 
witness  is  not  competent  to  testify  as  to  the  law  of  a  foreign  coun- 
try simply  because  he  has  studied  it  at  a  university  in  that  coun- 
try,^" or  because  he  was  a  student  of  history  therein.-'^  In  some  in- 
stances, however,  the  evidence  of  local  lawyers  has  been  received 


9  The  testimony  of  an  English  law- 
yer who  argues  appeals  from  (^anada 
before  the  Privy  Council  is  not  ad- 
missible as  expert  evidence  of  the 
validity  of  a  Canadian  marriage  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  Canada.  Cart- 
wright  r.  Cartwright.  26  W.  R.  (Eng.) 
684. 

In  a  case  in  Maryland  wherein  the 
question  arose  whether  a  receiver  ap- 
pointed in  New  York  had  complied 
with  the  requirements  of  a  statute 
of  tliat  state  as  to  notice  before  con- 
ducting a  sale  of  the  property  in  his 
charge,  the  court  said:  "The  evi- 
dence of  the  witness  Lee,  on  this 
point,  who  swears  that  the  sale  was 
made  'after  due  public  notice  and  ad- 
vertisement as  required  by  the  laws 
of  the  state  of  New  York,'  settles  the 
question,  provided  he  is  shown  to  be 
sufficiently  an  expert  to  give  such 
testimonj'.  He  states  that  he  is  thirty- 
four  years  of  age,  and  resides  in  New 
Y'ork  city,  and  is  by  occupation  a 
lawyer.  This  we  regard  as  sufficient 
to  enable  him  to  testify  as  he  has 
done.  The  objection  that  he  is  not 
shown  to  be  a  lawyer  practicing  in 
New  \''ork,  or  informed  of  the  law  of 
that  state,  but  merely  that  he  is  a 
lawyer  and  resides  in  New  Y''ork,  and, 
for  aught  that  appears,  may  have 
practiced  in  another  state  only,  is 
too  refined  to  be  tenable.  The  fact 
that  he  resides  in  New  York,  and  is 
a  lawyer  by  profession,  authorizes, 
in  tlie  absence  of  opposing  proof,  the 
inference   that    he   practices   his    pro- 


fession in  the  state  or  city  of  his  resi- 
dence, and  tliis  makes  him  competent 
to  testify  respecting  the  matter  about 
which  he  was  examined."  Consoli- 
dated Real  Estate,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Cashow, 
41  Md.  59. 

A  practicing  attorney,  graduated 
from  the  law  department  of  a  Geiraan 
universit.y,  and  who  practiced  and 
acted  as  judge  in  the  German  courts 
for  a  number  of  years,  during  which 
time  he  had  occasion  to  take  up  and 
decide  cases  involving  the  admiralty 
law,  held  competent  to  testify  as  an 
expert  as  to  the  maritime  law  of 
Germany  upon  a  question  to  which  he 
had  given  special  study.  Manchester 
Liners  v.  Virginia-Carolina  Cliemical 
Co.,  3  94  Fed.  463. 

10  Bristow  V.  Sequeville,  5  Exch. 
(Eng.)  275,  19  L.  J.  Exch.  289,  14 
Jur.  674,  3  C.  &  K.  64,  followed  in 
In  Goods  of  Bonelli,  1  P.  D.  (Eng.) 
69,  34  L.  T.  N.  S.  32,  45  L.  J.  P.  42, 
24  W.  R.  255,  wherein  it  appeared 
that  the  witness  had  studied  the  for- 
eign law  in  England. 

11  Banco  De  Sonora  r.  Bankers' 
Mut.  Casualty  Co.,  124  la.  576,  100 
N.  W.  532,  104  Am.  St.  Rep.  3G7. 

Compare  Goods  of  Whitelegg, 
[1899]  P.  (Eng.)  267,  68  L.  J.  P.  97, 
81  L.  T.  N.  S.  234,  wherein  it  ap- 
pears that  the  testimony  of  a  notary 
public,  who  had  had  extensive  prac- 
tice as  a  notary  for  many  years  in 
Chili,  was  received  to  prove  the  state 
and  effect  of  the  law  of  that  country. 


OOfi 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§  191 


in  proof  of  a  foreign  law,  where  it  appears  that  they  have  a  snfR- 
cient  knowledge  thereof  so  to  testify. ^^  So  also  the  testimony  of 
the  lawyer  of  another  country  is  admissible  npon  the  eonstrnction 
and  effect  of,  and  practice  under,  a  statute  of  that  country.^'     But 


12  Barber  i'.  International  Co.  of 
Mexico,  73  Conn.  587,  48  Atl.  758; 
Hall  V.  Costello,  48  X.  H.  179,  2  Am. 
Rep.  207 ;  Temple  r.  Pasquotank 
County,  111  N.  C.  36,  15  S.  E.  886. 

In  a  case  wherein  it  appeared  that 
an  American  lawyer  had  in  each  of 
two  successive  years  spent  three 
months  in  England,  and  endeavored 
during  such  visits  to  familiarize  him- 
self with  the  laws  of  England  in  re- 
gard to  the  registration  of  contracts 
of  corporations  of  the  kind  described 
in  the  complaint,  had  consulted  a 
solicitor  in  chancery  and  a  barrister 
on  that  subject,  and  had  read  one  or 
more  acts  of  Parliament  containing 
provisions  as  to  the  registration  of 
corporate  documents,  he  was  allowed, 
after  submitting  to  cross-examination 
as  to  his  qualifications  as  an  expert, 
further  to  testify  that  under  the  Eng- 
lish law  it  was  necessary  to  register 
such  a  contract  as  the  one  in  question, 
in  the  office  of  the  registrar  of  Eng- 
lish corporations  in  Somerset  House 
in  London.  On  appeal  the  court  said, 
per  Baldwin,  J.:  ''The  decision  of 
the  trial  court  that  the  witness  knew 
enough  of  the  foreign  law  in  contro- 
versy to  be  allowed  to  testify  as  to 
what  it  was,  is  sufficiently  supported 
by  the  testimony  upon  which  it  was 
l)ased."  Barber  v.  International  Co. 
of  Mexico.  73  Conn.  .-)H7,  48  Atl.  758. 

13  I'nited  States. — Slater  c.  Mexican 
Xat.  R.  Co.,  104  U.  S.  120,  24  S.  Ct. 
581,  48  r.  S.  (L.  ed.)  000,  ,iff\n,iiu,i 
1  15    Frd.   5!):},   :').•'.   ('.  C.  A.  2:50. 

Miilidiiia. —  \\iiik('r  v.  Euiljcs,  31 
Ala.  0. 


Arkansas. — See  Barkman  v.  Hop- 
kins, 11  Ark.  157. 

Connecticut. — Dyer  v.  Smith,  12 
Conn.  384. 

Georgia. — Chattanooga,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
r.  Jackson,  86  Ga.  676,  13  S.  E.  109. 

Illinois. — McDeed  V.  McDeed,  67  111. 
545.  See  also  Hoes  v.  Van  Alstyne, 
20  111.  202. 

Iowa. — Greason  v.  Davis,  9  la.  219; 
Crafts   V.  Clark,  38  la.  237. 

Kcntnclcy. — See  Barker  V.  Brown, 
33   S.   W.   833. 

Maryland. — Dimpfel  v.  Wilson,  107 
Md.  329,  15  Ann.  Cas.  753,  68  Atl. 
561,   13   L.R.A.(N.S.)    1180. 

Massachusetts. — Mowry  v.  Chase, 
100  Mass.   79. 

Michigan. — Seventh  Day  Advent- 
ists  General  Conf.  Ass'n.  v.  Michigan 
Sanitarium,  etc.,  Ass'n.,  166  Mich. 
504,  132  N.  W.  94. 

ycbraska. — Snyder  v.  Critchfield, 
44  Xeb.  70,  62  X.  W.  306. 

Xcio  Hampshire. — Hall  v.  Costello, 
48  X.  H.  179,  2  Am.  Rep.  207;  Ken- 
nard  r.  Kennard.  63  X.  H.  303.  See 
Jenne  r.  Harrisville,  63  X.  H.  405. 

Pennsylvania. — Bollinger  v.  Gal- 
lagher, 163  Pa.  St.  245,  29  Atl.  751, 
43  Am.  St.  Rep.  791,  34  W.  X.  C. 
564. 

Rhode  Island. — Barrows  r.  Downs, 
9  R.  I.  446,  11  Am.  Rep.  283. 

Texas. — Sierra  Madre  Constr.  Co. 
r.  Brick,  55  S.  \V.  521. 

The  evidence  of  one  learned  in  the 
peculiar  system  of  law  to  be  proved  is 
competent  as  showing  wliat  the  real 
rule  is  as  the  result,  not  of  one  par- 
ticular statute  or  decision,  but  of  the 


191] 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


337 


as  to  the  written  law  itself,  the  rule  is  different;  in  the  United 
States  parol  evidence  is  not  admissible  to  prove  the  terms  of  a  stat- 
ute, or  other  written  Inw."     In  England,  however,  the  contrary 


whole  course  of  exposition,  interpre- 
tation, and  adjudication.  Genet  r. 
Delaware,  etc..  Canal  Co.,  13  Misc. 
409,  35  N.  Y.  S.  ]47. 

In  a  New  Jersey  case  wherein  it 
was  contended  that  the  presumption 
that  the  common  law  on  the  point  in 
issue  prevailed  in  New  York  was  not 
overcome  by  tlie  aflldavit  of  New  York 
counsel  annexed  to  the  answer,  for 
the  reason  that  the  affidavit  attempted 
to  show  tliat  the  rule  in  question  had 
been  abrogated  by  statute,  whereas 
the  only  legal  method  of  proving  the 
existence  of  a  statute  of  a  foreign 
state  was  not  by  the  testimony  of 
counsel  of  that  state,  but  by  the  pro- 
duction of  a  duly  authenticated  copy 
of  the  instrument  itself,  the  court 
said:  "W'liile  it  is  entirely  true  that 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  con- 
trary the  courts  of  New  Jersey  will 
presume  that  the  common  law  pre- 
vails in  a  sister  state,  I  cannot  agree 
to  the  proposition  that  tlie  only 
method  of  rebutting  this  presumption 
is  the  production  of  a  copy  of  the 
statute  whicli  abrogates  the  common- 
law  rule,  tlie  existence  of  which  is 
challenged.  ...  In  order  to  know 
Avhat  the  law  of  a  foreign  state  is  on  a 
given  subject  we  need  something  more 
than  the  production  of  the  statute, 
for  that  only  gives  the  words  in  which 
the  law  is  written.  The  question  to 
be  determined  is  not  what  the  lan- 
guage of  tlie  law  is,  but  what  tlie 
law  is  altogether,  as  shown  by  exposi- 
tion, interpretation,  and  adjudica- 
tion; and  this,  I  take  it,  can  best  be 
ascertained  by  the  testimony  of  a 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 22. 


professional  witness,  whose  special 
knowledge  enables  liim  to  speak  to 
that  fact."  Title  (Guarantee,  etc.,  Co. 
r.  Trenton  Potteries  Co.,  50  N.  J.  Eq. 
441,  38  Atl.   422. 

14  Hoes  V.  Van  Alstyne,  20  111.  202; 
McDeed  r.  McDeed,  67  111.  545.  See 
also  Kermott  r.  Ayer,  11  Mich.  181: 
Johnson  v.  Hcsser,  61  Neb.  631,  85  N. 
W.  894;  Watson  v.  Walker,  23  N.  H. 
476;  Kenny  r.  Clarkson,  1  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  394,  3  Am.  Dec.  336;  Atchison, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Lambert,  32  Okla.  665, 
123  Pac.  428;  Cole  v.  School  Dist.  No. 
29,  32  Okla.  692,  123  Pac.  426;  Clark 
V.  Eltinge,  38  Wash.  376,  80  Pac. 
556,  107  Am.  St.  Rep.  858.  Ccmparc 
Brady  v.  Palmer,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
27,  19  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  687;  Barrows  v. 
Downs,  9  R.  I.  446,  11  Am.  Rep.  283. 

Wliere  the  evidence  of  foreign  law 
consists  entirely  of  a  written  docu- 
ment, statute,  or  judicial  opinion,  the 
question  of  its  construction  and  ef- 
fect is  for  the  court  alone,  and  evi- 
dence of  a  lawyer  of  another  state  or 
country,  as  to  what,  in  the  opinion 
of  lawyers  tliere,  should  be  the  con- 
struction of  a  statute  of  that  state 
or  country  is  not  admissible  where 
the  language  of  the  statute  is  plain, 
and  there  is  no  decision  by  tlie  courts 
of  that  state  or  country  upon  the 
point  in  controversy.  Molson's  Bank 
V.  Boardman,  47  Hun  135,  14  N.  Y. 
St.  Rep.  658,  followed  in  Geoghegan 
r.  Atlas  S.  S.  Co.,  16  Daly  229,  10  N. 
Y.  S.  121.  To  the  same  effect  is  Hen- 
nessey /■.  Farrelly,  13  Daly  (X.  Y.) 
468. 

It   has   been  held  that,   in   the  ab- 


338 


LAW    PAKTNERSHIPS. 


[§  191 


appears  to  be  established,  so  that  the  testimony  of  a  hnvyer  of 
another  country  as  to  the  contents  of  a  statute  of  that  country  is 
admissible.^*  The  English  rule  has  been  followed  in  Canada.^® 
Where  testimony  of  a  foreign  lawj-er  as  to  the  common  law  of  an- 
other country  is  uncontradicted  the  court  may  follow  it/'  but  it  is 


sence  of  proof  of  any  decision  of  an- 
otlier  state  upon  the  construction  of 
a  statute  thereof,  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
trial  court  to  construe  such  statute, 
and  tlie  testimony  of  a  lawyer  of 
that  state  is  not  competent  as  to 
the  consensus  of  opinion  of  the  bench 
and  bar  therein  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  section.  Clark  v.  Eltinge.  38 
Wash.  376,  80  Pac.  556,  107  Am.  St. 
Eep.  858. 

A  lawyer  familiar  with  the  stat- 
utes and  decisions  of  another  state 
is  competent  to  testify  as  to  whether 
a  chattel  mortgage  witnessed  in  a 
certain  way  is  void  under  the  law  of 
such  state,  and  the  fact  that  he  was 
permitted  over  objection  to  state 
what  the  statute  itself  M'as,  even  if 
erroneous  (which  is  not  decided), 
was  not  materially  prejudicial.  Woods 
County  Union  Bank  r.  Shore,  87  Kan. 
]40,   123   Pac.   880. 

The  patent  laws  of  the  United 
States  are  not  the  laws  of  a  foreign 
country  to  be  proved  in  state  courts 
by  the  testimony  of  experts.  Owen 
r.  National  Hatchet  Co.,  147  la.  393, 
121   N.  W.  1070,  126  X.  W.  333. 

The  opinions  of  attorney-generals 
of  the  United  States  respecting  the 
construction  of  atrts  of  Congress  arc 
not  admissible  in  ;\\\  action  in  a 
state  court.  Sliirh'v  /.  Walker,  31 
Mf.    541. 

16  Nelson  r.  Itiidpoit.  S  I'cav. 
(Kng.)  527,  U)  .(iir.  H7 1  ;  Cocks  v. 
Purday,  2   C.  &    K.   ^O!),   Ol    K.   C.   L. 


269;   De  Rode's  Case,  8  Q.  B.  208,  55 
E.  C.  L.  208,  10  Jur.  217. 

16  Arnold  v.  Higgins,  11  U.  C.  Q. 
B.    446. 

17  Badische  Anilin,  etc.,  Fabrik  f. 
Klipstein,  125  Fed.  543:  Milwaukee, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Smith.  74  111.  197. 
See  also  Baltimore,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Glenn,  28  Md.  323,  92  Am.  Dec.  688. 

Thus,  in  The  Asiatic  Prince,  108 
Fed.  287,  47  C.  C.  A.  325.  the  court 
said:  "There  was  abundant  oppor- 
tunity to  take  the  testimony  of  some 
other  lawyer,  ...  if  the  state- 
ments of  claimant's  witness  were  in- 
accurate: .  .  .  but  libelant  has 
contented  himself  with  printing  co- 
pious excerpts  from  the  statute  law 
of  Brazil,  which  he  insists  do  not 
sustain  the  witness'  statements. 
.  .  Such  a  method  of  criticising 
the  testimony  of  a  foreign  lawyer  as 
to  the  law  which  prevails  in  his  coun- 
try is  unpersuasive.  There  is  much 
more  than  the  text  of  a  statutoi'y 
enactment  to  be  considered.  Depart- 
mental regulations,  administrative 
construction,  judicial  exposition,  arc 
often  quite  as  important.  The  text 
of  tlie  Act  of  Congress  of  February 
26,  1885,  c.  164,  23  Stat.  332  (3 
Fed.  St.  Ann.  298:  IT.  s.  Comp.  St. 
1901,  p.  1290),  might  well  convey  to 
a  jurist  in  some  foreign  country  a 
(lifTerent  meaning  from  that  which  it 
conveys  to  a  lawyer  here  who  is  fa- 
miliar with  Holy  Trinity  Church  r. 
V.  S..  143  V.  S.  457,  12  S.  Ct.  511, 
3(;    U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    226." 


§  191] 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


339 


not  bound  to  do  so.^*  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  evi- 
dence refers  to  a  statute,  or  other  written  law,  the  court  may  ex- 
amine it,  and  determine  for  itself  the  proper  construction  thereof.^' 
And  where  the  expert  evidence  as  to  the  foreign  law  is  unsatisfac- 
tory and  conflicting,  the  court  will  itself  review  the  decided  cases 
and  text  authorities ;  ^°  or,  treating  the  case  as  if  no  evidence  of 


Evidence  of  a  Scotch  advocate  upon 
the  validity  of  a  bequest,  wliere  the 
facts  were  stated  in  the  case  sub- 
mitted to  him,  was  held  conclusive  in 
Macdonald  /".  Macdonald,  L.  R.  14 
Eq.  (Eng.)  60,  41  L.  J.  Ch.  566,  26 
L.  T.  N.  S.  685,  20  W.  R.  739,  where- 
in the  court  said:  "'I'liere  is  evi- 
dence as  to  the  Scotch  law  whicli  I 
take  to  be  conclusive,  because  tlie 
facts  are  stated  in  the  case  submitted 
to  the  Scotch  advocate.  He  gives  an 
express  and  distinct  opinion  that  the 
ten  thousand  pounds  is  a  valid  be- 
quest according  to  the  law  of  Scot- 
land. Notliing  remains  but  to  have 
it  paid." 

18  Chattanooga^  etc.,  R.  Co..  v. 
Jackson,  86  Ga.  676,  13  S.  E.  lOt). 

19  Concha  r.  Murrietta,  40  Ch.  D. 
(Eng.)    543,  60  L.  T.  X.  S.  798. 

"Though  a  knowledge  of  foreign 
law  is  not  to  be  imputed  to  the  judge, 
you  may  impute  to  him  such  knowl- 
edge of  the  general  art  of  reasoning 
as  will  enable  him,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  the  bar,  to  discover  where 
fallacies  are  probably  concealed,  and 
in  what  cases  he  ought  to  require 
testimony  more  or  less  strict.  If  the 
utmost  strictness  were  required  in 
every  case,  justice  might  often  have 
to  stand  still ;  and  I  am  not  dis- 
posed to  say  that  there  may  not  be 
eases  in  whicli  the  judge  may,  with- 
out impropriety,  take  upon  liimself 
to  construe  the  words  of  a  foreign 
law,  and  determine  their  application 


to  the  case  in  question,  especially  if 
there  should  be  a  variance  or  want 
of  clearness  in  the  testimony."  Nel- 
son r.  Bridport,  8  Beav.  (Eng.)  527, 
10  Jur.  871. 

Thus  the  assertion  of  expert  wit- 
nesses that  a  certain  method  or 
scheme  for  winding  up  an  English 
corporation  is  approved  by  the  Eng- 
lish courts  will  not  be  regarded  as 
controlling  where  the  court  arrives 
at  a  contrary  opinion  from  a  view 
of  the  Englisli  statute  and  decisions 
upon  the  subject.  Bank  of  China, 
etc.,  V.  Morse,  168  X.  Y.  458,  61  N. 
E.  774,  85  Am.  St.  Rep.  676,  56  L.R.A. 
139,  affirming  44  App.  Div.  435,  61 
N.   Y.   S.    268. 

20  Bremer  r.  Freeman,  10  Moo.  P. 
C.  (Eng.)  306;  Hunt  r.  Trusts,  etc., 
Co.,  10  Ont.  L.  Rep.  147,  affirmed  18 
Ont.  L.  Rep.  351;  Pittsburg,  etc.,  R. 
Co.  V.  Austin,  141  Ky.  722,  133  S. 
W.  780;  Gasaway  v.  Thomas,  56 
Wash.  77,  20  Ann.  Cas.  1337,  105 
Pac.    168. 

The  testimonj'  of  a  lawyer  who  has 
practiced  in  another  state  that  the 
common  law  prevails  in  that  state 
except  as  modified  by  statute,  is  in- 
sufficient to  establish  the  fact  that 
the  common-law  rule  as  to  marital 
rights  prevails  in  that  state,  and  too 
indefinite  and  uncertain  to  furnisli 
a  rule  for  the  guidance  of  the  court 
wherein  such  testimony  is  given  in 
settling    property    rights.      Clardy    v. 


340 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§§    192,  193 


the  foreign  law  was  submitted,  conclude  that  such  law  is  the  same 
as  that  of  the  forum/ 

§  192.  Evidence  of  Validity  of  Title.  —  The  validity  of  title 
to  property  is  not  the  subject  of  expert  evidence  by  lawyers  or 
others ;  nor  would  such  testimony  be  binding  on  the  court  or  jury 
M'hose  province  it  is  to  decide  such  a  question  on  the  facts  pre- 
sented,^ But  where  all  of  the  facts  upon  which  the  opinion  is 
based  are  before  the  court,  the  admission  of  such  evidence  v/ould 
not  necessarily  be  prejudicial.^ 

Admissions  hij  Aftorneys  as  Evidence. 

§  193.  General  Rule. — For  the  purposes  of  his  emplo^nnent 
an  attorney  is  the  agent  of  his  client;  *  and  the  admissions  of  such 
attorney  are,  when  otherwise  relevant,  competent  evidence  against 
such  client.^     In  order  to  have  this  effect,  however,  it  is  necessary 


Wilson.    24    Tex.    Civ.    App.    196,    58 
S.  W.  52. 

1  The  opinion  of  a  lawyer  called  to 
prove  the  law  of  fixtures  of  a  foreign 
country,  where  he  does  not  testify 
to  any  statute  or  judicial  decision 
on  the  subject,  but  merely  gives  his 
opinion  on  the  general  law,  the  au- 
thorities being  conflicting,  which  opin- 
ion is  based  on  facts  not  in  the  record, 
is  not  controlling,  and  the  appellate 
court  will  presume  that  the  foreign 
law  on  the  subject  is  the  same  ab  the 
law  of  the  forum.  Gasaway  r. 
'JTiomas,  oG  Wash.  77,  20  Ann.  Cas. 
1337,   105   Pac.   168. 

2  Mead  r.  Altgeld,  130  111.  298.  2(i 
X.  E.  388;  I'.uswell  v.  O.  \V.  K<'rr 
Co..  112  Minn.  388,  21  Ann.  Cas. 
837,  128  X.  W.  459;  Moser  v.  Coch- 
rane. 107  X.  Y.  35,  13  X.  K.  442: 
Murray  r.  Ellis,  112  Pa.  St.  485,  3 
Atl.  845:  Prackcnridge  r.  Claridgc, 
01  Tex.  527,  44  S.  W.  81!),  43  ]>.!;. A. 
593. 


SBuswell  r.  0.  W.  Kerr  Co.,  112 
Minn.  388.  21  Ann.  Cas.  837,  128 
X.    W.    459. 

4  Kirchlieimer  v.  Barrett,  125  111. 
App.  56 :  Central  Branch  Union  Pac. 
R.  Co.  r.  Shoup,  28  Kan.  395,  42 
Am.  Rep.  163:  Loomis  r.  Xew  York, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass.  39,  34  X.  E. 
82. 

5  United  States. — Turner  r.  Yates, 
16    How.    14,   14   U.    S.    (L.   ed.)    824. 

California.- — People  v.  Garcia,  25 
Cal.  531;  People  r.  Robles,  34  Cal. 
591. 

Connecticut. — Mather  r.  Phelps,  2 
Root  150,  1  Am.  Dec.  65;  State  V. 
Marx,   78  Conn.   18,  60  Atl.  690. 

//idiawo.— Blessing  V.  Dodds,  53 
Ind.  95. 

Massachusetts. — James  v.  Boston 
El.  R.  Co..  201  Mass.  263,  87  X.  E. 
474. 

Miclii<ian. — Kramer  v.  Gust  in,  53 
Mich.  291,  19  N.   VV.  1. 


§    1!)^] 


LAW     I'AKT.XEKSHIPS. 


341 


for  the  admission  to  be  within  the  scope  of  the  attorney's  author- 
ity,^ made  during  his  employment/  distinct  and  formal  in  char- 
acter,* and  made  for  the  purpose  of  dispensing  with  certain  proof, 
or  with  some  other  legal  requirement.^  In  the  trial  of  a  cause, 
the  admissions  of  counsel  are  constantly  received  and  acted  upon; 
and,  as  bearing  upon  the  issue  involved,  such  admissions  may  be 
the  ground  of  the  court's  action  equally  as  if  the  facts  admitted 
were  established  by  the  clearest  proof.^°  And,  in  some  instances, 
an   admission   by   an   attorney,   though   not  made   under  circum- 


Xeiv  Hampshire. — Alton  f.  Gilman- 
ton,  2  X.  H.  520. 

South  GaroZtna.— Lombard  v.  Hen- 
(Irix,  54  S.  C.  476,  32  S.  E.  511. 

Utah. — Burraston  r.  Neplii  First 
Nat.  Bank,  22  Utali  .328,  62  Pac. 
425. 

Wisconsin. — Knapp  v.  Runals,  37 
Wis.    135. 

6  See   infra,    §    194. 

7  See  infra.  §  196. 

8  McRea  r.  Insurance  Bank,  16 
Ala.  755 ;  Chicago  City  R.  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Mcen,  70  111.  App.  220;  Lake  Erie, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Rooker,  13  Ind.  App. 
600,  41  N.  E.  470;  Treadway  r.  Sioux 
City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  40  la.  526;  Jose 
V.  Hoyt,  106  Mo.  App.  594,  81  S. 
W.  468;  Douglass  v.  Mitchell,  35  Pa. 
.St.  440;  Virginia-Carolina  Chemical 
Co.  V.  Knight,  106  Va.  674,  56  S.  E. 
725. 

Retraction  of  Admissions. — Where 
an  attorney  has,  in  the  progress  of 
a  cause,  made  admissions  against  his 
client's  interests  under  a  misappre- 
hension of  the  facts,  he  may  retract 
them ;  but  in  such  a  case  the  retrac- 
tion will  be  allowed  only  upon  con- 
dition that  he  disclose  the  true  facts. 
Gates  r.  Brinkley,  4  Lea  (Tenn.)   710. 

See  infra,  §  195. 

9  United  States. — The  Harry,  9 
Ben.   524,   11   Fed.   Cas.   No.   6,147. 


Connecticut. — Abbott  v.  Lee,  86 
Conn.  392,  85  Atl.  526. 

Indiana. — Lake  Erie,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Rooker,  13  Ind.  App.  600,  41  N.  E. 
470. 

Louisiana. — Shipman  c.  Haynes,  15 
La.   363. 

Massacliusetts. — Piekert  v.  Hair, 
146   Mass.  1,   15   N.   E.   79. 

Missouri. — Nichols  c.  Jones,  32  Mo. 
App.    657. 

Xchrasha. — Whiteside  v.  Adams 
Express  Co.,  89  Neb.  430,  131  N.  W. 
953. 

^'crmo)lt. — Underwood  v.  Hart,  23 
Vt.  120. 

Lord  Ellenborough,  in  Young  v. 
Wright,  1  Canipb.  (Eng.)  139,  said: 
"If  a  fact  is  admitted  by  the  attor- 
ney on  the  record,  with  intent  to  ob- 
viate the  necessity  of  proving  it,  he 
must  be  supposed  to  have  authority 
for  this  purpose,  and  his  client  will 
he  bound  by  the  admission." 

10  Starke  r.  Kenan,  11  Ala.  818; 
Tevis  V.  Ryan,  13  Ariz.  120,  108  Pac. 
461. 

When  a  district  attorney  admitted 
that  any  number  of  witnesses,  how- 
ever great,  would  testify  that  the 
reputation  of  the  deceased  for  peace 
and  quiet  was  bad,  no  witnesses  to 
the  contrary  being  offered,  it  may 
almost  be  said  as  matter  of  law  that 


;i2 


LAW     PAIiT^fEUSIIirS. 


[§  194 


stances  that  would  make  it  evidence  as  against  his  client,  is  admis- 
sible to  show  that  the  attorney  had  knowledge  of  the  fact  admit- 
ted/^ or  for  the  purpose  of  rebutting  the  evidence  of  such  attor- 
ney. ^^  In  Michigan  it  has  been  held  that  a  conviction  in  a  crimi- 
nal case,  involving  the  question  of  intent,  cannot  be  predicated 
upon  the  admissions  of  counsel.^^  And  in  Texas,  the  jury  in 
criminal  cases  are  not  authorized  to  give  the  slightest  weight  to' 
any  admissions  or  statements  of  counsel  as  to  the  facts.^* 


§  194.  Within  Scope  of  Attorney's  Authority. — Admissions 
made  by  an  attorney,  in  order  to  be  provable  against  his  client, 
must  be  wdthin  the  scope  of  the  attorney's  authority ;  if  so  they 
are  admissible ;  ^^  otherwise,  of  course,  they  are  not.^^    So  that,  in 


liis  reputation  in  these  particular 
characteristics  was  bad.  People  v. 
Shaver,  120  Cal.  354,  52  Pac.  651. 

The  language  used  in  an  admis- 
sion will  be  given  its  ordinary  mean- 
ing. ^Master  Builder's  Assoc,  v.  Do- 
niascio,  16  Colo.  App.  25.  6.3  Pac. 
782. 

11  Beinert  r.  Tivoli,  62  Misc.  616, 
IHi  X.   Y.   S.   4. 

12  Worley  v.  Hineman,  6  Ind.  App. 
240,    33    N.    E.   260. 

13  People  r.  Hall,  86  Mich.  132,  48 
N.    W.    869. 

i4NeIs  r.  State,  2  Tex.  280;  Clay- 
ton V.  State,  4  Tex.  App.  515;  San- 
derson r.  State,  (Tex.)  44  S.  W. 
1103;  Murrautt  r.  State,  (Tex.)  63 
S.  W.  634. 

l^  Alahanta. — McRea  r.  Insurance 
Bank,    10    Ala.    755. 

California. — Woods  r.  Jensen,  130 
Cal.  200,  02  Pac.  473. 

Connecticut. — McXamara  r.  Doug- 
las, 78  Conn.  21!).  61   Atl.  368. 

Florida. — Tlionuis  P.ros.  Co.  v. 
Price,  50  Fla.  854,  48  So.  262. 

Illinois.- — Wilson  r.  Spring,  64  111. 
I  I. 

loii:a. — Neiiiflorf  r.  \^an  de  Voorde, 


143  la.  318.  120  N.  W.  84;  Cox  v. 
Cline.   147   Ta.  353,   126  N.  W.  330. 

Massachusetts. — Loomis  r.  New 
York,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  159  Mass.  39,  34 
X.  E.  82;  James  r.  Boston  El.  R.  Co., 
201   Mass.  263,  87  X.  E.  474. 

Michigan. — Ward  r.  Beecher,  56 
:\Iich.  616,  23  X.  W.  438;  Brown  r. 
Creat  Camp  of  Kniglits  of  Modern 
Maccabees,  167  Midi.  123,  132  X.  W. 
562. 

Mississippi. — Wenans  v.  Lindsey,  1 
How.   577. 

A'eic  yo77,-. — Stinesville,  etc.,  Stone 
Co.  r.  White,  32  Misc.  135,  65  X.  Y'. 
S.  609,  reversing  25  :Misc.  314,  54  X. 
Y.  S.   577. 

Soittli.  Carolina.  —  Moinliard  r. 
Youngblood,  41  S.  C.  312,  19  S.  E. 
075. 

16  United  States. — Hor.seslioe  Min. 
Co.  r.  Miners'  Ore  Sampling  Co.,  147 
Fed.  517,  77  C.  C.  A.  213. 

California. — Wilson  r.  Southern 
Pac.  R.  Co.,  53  Vi\\.  735;  Dawson  i. 
Schloss,  93  Cal.  194,  29  Pac.  31. 

Connecticut. — Rockwell  v.  Taylor, 
41   Conn.  55. 

Georgia. — Cassels  v.  Usry,  51  Ga. 
021. 


§    105]  LAW    PARTNERSHIPS.  34:3 

this  aspect  of  the  situation,  the  question  of  authority  to  make 
the  admission  becomes  predominant.  As  a  rule,  each  case  must 
depend  on  its  own  facts,  and  this  is  especially  true  where  it  is 
claimed  that  some  special  authority  has  been  conferred  on  the 
attorney  by  his  client.  In  such  case  the  party  offering  the  evi- 
dence would  be  obliged  first  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  attorney 
was  authorized  to  make  the  declarations  on  behalf  of  his  client.^''' 
Thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  legal  advdser,  or  general  counsel, 
of  a  corporation  has  no  authority,  by  virtue  of  his  general  employ- 
ment, to  bind  the  company  by  declarations  or  admissions  outside 
of  the  business  of  the  law  department,  unless  it  is  shown  that  such 
counsel  is  vested  with  special  authority  concerning  such  matters.'^' 
An  admission  of  the  defendant's  liability  by  an  attorney,  to  whom 
the  plaintiff  was  referred  by  the  defendant,  is  not  competent  in 
the  absence  of  proof  that  the  attorney  was  referred  to  in  such  a 
way  as  to  constitute  him  an  agent  of  the  defendant,  with  authority 
to  make  admissions  or  promises  to  the  plaintift".^^  ]^or  can  an 
admission  be  predicated  on  the  advice  given  by  an  attorney  to  his 
client,^"  or  upon  an  expression  of  an  opinion  by  counsel  favorable 
to  his  client's  opponent.^ 

§  195.  Formality  and  Distinctness. — While  an  attorney  is 
in  one  sense  his  client's  agent,  still  the  special  work  which  counsel 
has  to  perform  is  to  make  the  most  favorable  showing  possible 
upon  the  facts,  as  well  as  law.  He  is  an  advocate  with  unlimited 
powers  of  discretion.  He  is  not  like  an  ordinary  agent,  whose 
express  duties  and  methods  of  procedure  are  laid  out  beforehand, 
so  that  the  principal  may  justly  be  held  liable  for  what  he  origi- 
nates, though  its  execution  be  entrusted  to  another.      An  advo- 

Massachiisetts.  — Victor    r.    Spald-  19  Proctor  r.  OLl  ''olony  11.  Co.,  L")4 

ing,  199  Mass.  52,  84  N.  E.  1016,  127  Mass.  251,  28  N.  E.  ].^. 

Am.  St.  Rep.  472.  20  Klein     v.     East     Pviver     Electric 

'N^eio    YorA-.— Lewis    v.    Duane,    69  Light  Co.,  1S2  X.  Y.  27,  74  N.  E.  495, 

Hun  28,  23  N.  Y.  S.  433:   Ditmars  r.  reversing  90  App.   Div.  1)2,  86  N.  Y. 

Sackett,  81  Hun  317.  30  N.  Y.  S.  721.  S.  164. 

17  O'Brien  v.  Weiler,  08  Hun  04,  i  Farmers'  Mut.  F.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bow- 
22  N.  Y.  S.  62"  en,    40    Mich.    147;    Hicks    r.   Naomi 

18  Ohio,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Levy,  134  Falls  Mfg.  Co.,  138  N.  C.  319.  50  S. 
Ind.  343,  32  N.  E.  815,  34  N.  E.  20.  E.  703. 


344 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§  195 


cate's  statements  are  always  supposed  to  be  adapted  to  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  ease  on  trial,  and  colored  by  what  he  conceives  his 
client's  best  interest  demands,  at  that  particular  time,  and  under 
those  peculiar  circumstances.  Acts  and  statements  that  would 
seem  disingenuous,  or  even  culpably  misleading  in  other  rela- 
tions of  life,  are  pardoned  in  the  professional  advocate,  because  of 
his  necessary  attitude  toward  his  client,  and  toward  the  enemy. 
There  is  every  reason,  therefore,  why  the  oral  statements  of  coun- 
sel upon  a  judicial  inquiry  of  any  sort,  no  matter  what  their 
purport  may  be,  should  not  be  taken  as  solemn  admissions  of  fact 
which  the  client  may  not  afterward  gainsay.^  Thus  it  has  been 
lield  that  remarks  made  by  counsel  will  not  bind,  or  be  admissible 
against,  the  client,  where  there  is  no  such  distinctness  and  for- 
mality  in  the  making  of  the  statements  as  to  indicate  an  intention 
either  that  they  should  be  taken  to  be  admissions,^  or  that  they 
should  be  so  understood.*  Mere  incidental,  or  unguarded  expres- 
sions of  counsel,  or  ambiguous  statements,  should  not  be  so  strained 


2  Anderson  r.  ]\lcAloenan,  15  Daly 
444,  8  N.  Y.  S.  48:]. 

3  Connecticut. — Rockwell  v.  Taylor, 
41    Conn.    55. 

Idaho.— State  r.  Shuff,  9  Idaho  115, 
72  Pac.  G64. 

Indiana. — North  c.  Jones,  100  N. 
E.  84. 

Missouri. — Jose  v.  Hoyt,  106  Mo. 
App.  594,  81  S.  W.  468;  O'Donnell  r. 
McElroy,  157  Mo.  App.  547,  138  S. 
W.  674;  Renfrew  v.  Goodfellow,  162 
Mo.  App.  333,  141  S.  W.  lir.3. 

.A>/;rosAa. — Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Connolly,  77  Neb.  2.'>4,  109  N.  W.  368. 

Neu:  York. — Leeonr  r.  Importers' 
etc.,  Nat.  Panic,  38  App.  Div.  384,  50 
N.  y.  S.  35(5;  Adee  V.  Howe,  15  Hun 
20;  Ryan  f.  Brown,  104  N.  Y.  S.  871. 

Worth  Carolina. — Davidson  v.  Clif- 
ford, 100  N.  C.  IS!,  0  R.  E.  718;  Hicks 
r.  Naomi  I'alis  .Mfj,'.  Co.,  138  N.  C. 
319,  50  S.  K.  703. 

Pennsylvania. — Lowrie  /;.  X'crner,  3 


Watts  317;  Snyder  v.  Armstrong,  6 
W\  N.  C.  412. 

Washinfjton. — Irwin  «'.  Buffalo 
Pitts  Co.,  39  Wash.  346,  81  Pac.  849; 
Dollar  V.  Xortluvestern  Imp.  Co.,  72 
Wash.  1,   129  Pac.  578. 

4  Adee  i\  Howe,  15  Hun  (N.  Y.)   20. 

Wliore,  on  offering  a  lien  in  evi- 
dence, counsel  said:  "I  object  to  the 
lien  being  introduced  in  evidence  be- 
cause it  does  not  comply  with  the 
requirements  of  section  4207  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  of  1899  in  regard 
thereto,  in  tliis  that  there  is  no  item- 
ized account  of  the  articles  charged 
for,  and  that  there  is  no  statement  of 
tiie  quality  of  the  articles  furnished; 
nor  of  the  price  cliarged  for  the  ma- 
terials claimed  to  have  been  furnislied 
to  the  original  contractor  in  this 
case,"  it  was  held  that  it  would  not 
be  fair  to  say  that  the  language, 
wiien  liberally  construed  and  taken  in 
connection   with   the   object   intended, 


§  19.>] 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


345 


in  meaning  as  to  prcjiulice  the  client,^  even  though  they  are  made 
during  the  progress  of  a  trial,^  and  in  presence  of  the  jury."^  The 
doctrine  of  acquiescence  does  not  apply  to  proceedings  on  trials 
of  controversies,  because  it  is  not  the  right  or  duty  of  a  party  to 
interrupt  the  order  of  proceedings  in  such  cases  by  denials  or  con- 
tradictions, and  his  silence  cannot,  therefore,  under  such  circum- 
stances, be  deemed  an  admission.^  To  entitle  a  remark  of  counsel 
to  the  character  of  an  admission,  it  must  have  some  degree  of 
deliberation,  purpose,  and  recognition  for  that  end.^  Admissions 
which  occur  in  mere  conversation,  though  they  relate  to  matters  at 
issue  in  the  case,  cannot  be  received  in  evidence  against  a  client.^*' 


was  an  admission  that  there  was  an 
oriirinal  contractor.  Jose  v.  Hoyt, 
IOC)  Mo.  App.  594,  81  S.  W.  468. 

5Tevis  V.  Ryan,  13  Ariz.  120,  108 
Pac.  461  ;  Missouri,  etc.,  Telephone 
Co.  r.  Vandevort,  67  Kan.  269,  12 
l^ic.  771;  Jose  r.  Hoyt,  106  Mo.  App. 
oiJ4,  81  S.  W.  468. 

GMcKeen  v.  Gammon,   33  Me.   187. 

7  State  V.  Shuff,  9  Idaho  115,  72 
Pac.  664. 

sWilkins  v.  Stidger,  22  Cal.  231, 
83  Am.  Dec.  64. 

•'Merely  casual,  hasty,  inconsider- 
ate admissions  of  counsel  in  the 
course  of  a  trial,  do  not  bind  the 
client:  tliey  are  not  intended  to  have 
such  effect,  nor  does  the  nature  of  the 
relation  of  attorney  and  client  pro- 
duce such  result.  And  this  is  so,  al- 
tliough  the  client  be  present  when 
such  inconsiderate  admissions  are 
made.  It  would  be  rude,  indecorous, 
disorderly  and  confusing,  if  the  client 
should  interpose  to  correct  his  coun- 
sel and  disclaim  his  authority  to 
make  such  admissions.  Neither  the 
court,  counsel,  nor  any  intelligent 
person  expects  him  to  do  so.  And  for 
the  like  reason,  the  client,  if  exam- 
ined as  a  witness,  is  not  required  to 
disclaim    such    admissions   of   his    at- 


torney, unless  he  shall  be  examined 
by  tlie  opposinjj  party  for  tliat  pur- 
pose." Davidson  v.  Gifford,  100  N. 
C.  18,  6  S.  E.  718.  But  see  Tolbert  r. 
State.    (Ga.)    78  S.  E.  131. 

9Tevis  r.  Ryan,  13  Ariz.  120.  108 
Pac.  461  :  Adeo  v.  Howe,  15  Hun 
(X.  Y.)    20. 

10  England. — Parkins  i\  Hawkshaw, 
2  Stark.  239,  3  E.  C.  L.  393;  Wilson 
v.  Turner,  1   Taunt.  398. 

(leorgia. — Cable  Co.  v.  Parantha, 
118  Ga.  913,  45  S.  E.  787. 

foica. — Treadway  r.  Sioux  City, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  40   la.  526. 

MassacJiuscttf;. — Saunders  v.  Mc- 
Carthy, 8  Allen  42. 

Mississippi. — Wenans  v.  Lindsey, 
1  How.  577. 

y^cbraslca. — Wliiteside  v.  Adam.s 
Express  Co.,  89  Neb.  430,  131  N.  W. 
953. 

Wew  York. — Lecour  v.  Importers' 
etc.,  Nat.  Bank,  38  App.  Div.  384,  56 
N.  Y.  S.  356;  Stephens  f.  Vroman,  16 
N.  Y.  381. 

North  Carolina. — Hicks  v.  Naomi 
Falls  Mfg.  Co.,  138  N.  C.  319,  50  S. 
E.   703. 

Wisconsin. — Fosha  v.  O'Donnell, 
120  Wis.  336,  97  N.  W.  924. 


346  LAW    PARTNERSHIPS.  [§    196 

It  has  been  quite  generally  held  that  the  opening  statements  of 
counsel,  as  to  the  facts  he  expects  to  prove  on  the  trial,  have  not 
the  force  of  a  binding  admission ;  ^^  but  where  such  statements 
are  formal  and  distinct,  and  apparently  intended  as  an  admission 
of  fact,  it  would  seem  that  they  might  be  recognized  and  proven 
as  such.^^  The  "judicial  confession"  is  the  declaration  which  the 
party,  or  his  special  attorney  in  fact,  makes  in  a  judicial  pro- 
ceeding ;  and  it  cannot  be  revoked,  unless  it  is  proved  to  have  been 
made  through  error  of  fact.^^ 

§  196,  During  Employment. — The  statements  of  an  attor- 
ney cannot,  of  course,  bind  one  who  is  not  his  client,^*  even  thougii 
subsequently  the  parties  actually  entered  into  the  relation  of  at- 
torney and  client.'^*  So,  also,  admissions  made  by  an  attorney 
after  his  employment  has  ended,  are  not  binding  upon  his  former 
client,  and  are  Avholly  incompetent  as  evidence  against  such  client.^® 
Xor  are  the  declarations  of  an  attorney  competent  to  prove  his 
employment,^''^  or  to  show  the  scope  of  his  authority.^*  As  an  attor- 
ney's power  is  not  general,  but  special,  and  confined  to  the  par- 
ticular case  in  which  he  is  employed,  his  admissions  cannot  be 
received  outside  of  that  case,  unless  his  client  has  made  the  ad- 
missions his  own  by  acquiescing  in  them.^^ 

11  Riiss  r.  Wabash  Western  R.  Co.,  13  Coleman    v.  Jones,   131    La.   803, 
112  Mo.  45,  20  S.  W.  472,  18  L.R.A.       60  So.  243. 

823;  Evans  v.  Montgomery,  95  Mich.  14  Smith    v.    Bradliurst,    18    Misc. 

497,  55  N.  W.  362;  People  v.  Thomp-  546,   41   N.   Y.    S.    1002;    Dnnohue   r. 

son,  103  Mich.  80,  61  N.  W.  .345;  Fer-  Watson,   72    Misc.   56,   128    X.    Y.   S. 

son   r.  Wilcox,  19  Minn.  449.  1089;  Moffit  r.  Witherspoon,  32  N.  C. 

It   would   be   extravagant  to   allow  185. 

the  Slimming  up  of  counsel,  in  whole  15  First  Nat.  Bank  r.  Anderson,  28 

or  in  part,  to  be  used  as  evidence  of  S.  C.  143,  5  S.  E.  343. 

his    client's    admissions,    because    the  16  Walden   v.   Bolton,    55   Mo.   405; 

latter  did  not  interrupt  his  counsel  to  Janeway  r.  Skerritt,  30  N.  J.  L.  97; 

correct   tlie  supposed   error.     Adee  i".  Wright  r.  Daily,  26  Tex.  730. 

Howe,  15  Hun    (X.  Y.)    20.     See  also  17  VVorley  t".  Hineman,  6   Tnd.  App. 

Moflit   r.   Witherspoon,   32   N.  C.  185.  240,  33  N.  E.  260. 

12  Lindlcy  r.  Atchison,  etc..  R.  Co.,  18  West   v.   A.   F.    Messick    Grocery 
47   Kan.  432.  28   Pac.  201  ;   Missouri,  Co.,  138  N.  C.  166,  50  S.  E.  565. 
etc..   Telephone  Co.    ;•.   Vandcvort.   67  IS  Nichols    v.    Jones,    32    Mo.    App. 
Kan.  269,  72  Pac.  771.  657. 


§§    197,  198]  LAW    PARTNERSHIPS.  847 

§  197.  Admissions  by  Attorney's  Clerks.  —  Where  an  at- 
torney intrusts  the  business  of  his  client  to  a  clerk,  it  has  been 
held  that  the  declarations  made  by  such  clerk  in  connection  with 
the  client's  affairs,  and  within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  are 
competent  evidence  as  against  the  client.^"  Thus  where  a  clerk 
had  actual  charge  of  the  collection  of  an  account,  and  had  drawn 
papers  for  attachment  proceed iugs,  wliieh  were  afterwards  filed 
on  the  attorney's  approval,  it  was  held  that  the  clerk's  declarations 
were  admissible  against  the  client  when  sued  for  wrongful  attach- 
ment.^ Clients  cannot,  in  reason,  expect  that  every  act  in  connec- 
tion with  the  business  affairs  intrusted  by  them  to  an  attorney 
will  be  done  by  him  personally.  In  the  very  nature  of  things, 
much  of  the  detail  work  must  be  done  by  assistants  under  the  super- 
vision of  such  attorney.  To  say  that  for  the  particular  acts  done 
by  such  an  assistant  the  client  is  under  no  responsibility,  might 
lead  to  the  gravest  abuses.^ 

§  198.  Competency  of  Admission  on  Subsequent  Trial.  — 

Where  an  admission  is  distinctly  and  formally  made  by  counsel,^ 
for  the  express  purpose  of  relieving  the  opposing  party  from  some 
legal  requirement,  or  from  the  proof  of  some  f act,^  it  may  be  intro- 
duced in  evidence  upon  a  subsequent  trial  of  the  same  action.^ 

20  Murray  r.  Sweasy,.  69  App.   Div.       North    Carolina    Land    Co.,    90    Fed. 
45,  74  N.  Y.  S.  543.  238,  61    U.  S.  App.   647,  33   C.   C.  A. 

iLord  V.  Wood,  ]20  la.  303,  94  N.      47. 

^'  ^'^2-  Alabama. — Evan  r.  Beard,  74  Ala. 


2  Lord  v.  Wood,  120  la.  303,  94  N. 


306. 


Illinois. — Kircliheimer    v.    Barrett,, 
125   111.   App.  56. 


■  Connecticut. — Perry      r.      Simpson 

3  See  §195.  Waterproof   Mfg.  Co.,   40   Conn.   313. 

4  See  §  193  note.  Georgia.— Uargroves    v.    Redd,    43 
^  Enr/land. — Landley    v.    Oxford,    1  p,       .,.-, 

M.  &  W.  508;  Elton  r.  Larking,  5  C.  & 
P.  385,  24  E.  C.  L.  372,  1  M.  &  Rob. 

196;  Colledge  V.  Horn,  3  Bing.  119,  ^  ,.  ^^  ..  ,  „„  t  , 
11  E.  C.  L.  59;  Doe  v.  Bird,  7  C.  &  P.  Indmna.-H^ys  v.  Hynds,  28  Tnd. 
6,  32  E.  C.  L.  415:  Van  Wart  v.  Wol-  ^3^'  ^^^^^i^ney  v.  Salem,  77  Ind.  213. 
lev,  R.  &  M.  4,  21  E.  C.  L.  366;  Haller  Kansas.— Central  Branch  Union 
t;,\vorman,  2  F.  &  F.  165,  3  L.  T.  N.  P^c.  R.  Co.  v.  Shoup,  28  Kan.  394,  42 
S.  741,  9  W.  R.  348:  Marshall  r.  -'^m.  Rep.  163;  Missouri,  etc.,  Tele- 
Cliff,  4  Campb.  133.  phone  Co.  r.  Vandevort,  67  Kan.  269, 
United   States.— Scaife   v.   Western  72  Pac.  771. 


348 


LAW    PAKT>'EKSIIII'S. 


:§  198 


Admissions  of  this  kind,  nnless  specially  restricted,  may  be  availed 
of  at  any  subsequent  period  ;  ®  and  can  only  be  withdrawn  by  leave 
of  court  or  by  consent  of  the  parties.'  But  if  from  the  language 
used  at  the  time,  or  the  surrounding  circumstances,  it  appears 
that  an  admission  was  intended  as  a  mere  waiver  of  proof  for  the 
purposes  of  the  particular  trial  only,  that  will  be  the  whole  scope 
of  its  force ;  it  will  not,  in  such  case,  be  admissible  against  the 
client  on  a  subsequent  trial  of  the  cause.^    It  is  doubtless  often  true 


Louisiana. — Siiipman  r.  Ilaynos,  1.5 
La.  363. 

Maine. — Holloy  r.  Young,  68  ^le. 
215,  28  Am.  Rep.  40. 

Maryland.  —  Farmers'  Bank  v. 
Sprigg,  11  Md.  389;  Ehvoocl  ;,.  Lan- 
noii.  27  :\Id.  200. 

\'cir  Jersey. — Marsh  r.  Mitchell,  2(i 
X.  .J.  Kq.  497:   Gallagher  r.  McBride, 

66  X.  .T.  L.  360.  49  Atl.  582. 

yew  York. — Owen  v.  Cawley,  36  N. 
Y.  600;  Adee  v.  Howe,  15  Hun  20: 
Voisin   V.   Commercial  Mut.   Ins.   Co., 

67  Hun  365,  22  X^  Y.  S.  348. 

XortJi  Carolina. — Virginia-Carolina 
Chemical  Co.  r.  Kirven,  130  X.  C. 
161,  41  X.  E.  1. 

Ohio. — State  r.  Buclianan.  Wright 
233. 

South  Carolina. — Brown  v.  Pech- 
rnan,  55  S.  C.  555,  33  S.  E.  732. 

6  Sea  if  0  r.  Western  Xorth  Carolina 
Land  Co.,  90  Fed.  238,  61  U.  S.  App. 
647,  33  C.  C.  A.  47 :  Moynahan  v.  Per- 
kins, 36  Colo.  481,  10  Ann.  Cas.  1061, 
85  Pac.  1132;  Missouri,  etc.,  Tele- 
plione  Co.  r.  Vandevort,  67  Kan.  260, 
72  Pac.  771:  Holderness  r.  Baker,  44 
N.  H.  414. 

7  Owen  r.  Cawley,  36  X.  Y.  600. 
Admissions   contained    in    a    hill    of 

I'xceptions  signed  by  counsel  arc  ad- 
inissil)]o  in  any  subsequent  j)roeeed- 
ing  in  tlie  action,  unless  the  attorney 
making   tlicra   is   relieved    from    their 


elTeet  by  the  court.  Scaife  v.  West- 
ern Xorth  Carolina  Land  Co.,  90  Fed. 
238,  61  U.  S.  App.  647,  33  C.  C.  A. 
47;  Holky  r.  Young,  68  Me.  215.  28 
Am.  Rep.  40:  Virginia-Carolina 
Chemical  Co.  v.  Kirven,  130  X.  C. 
161,  41  X.  E.  1. 

'■\A'here  the  parties  enter  into  a 
formal  agreement  in  writing,  stipu- 
lating for  the  admission  of  certain 
specified  facts,  or  waiving  their  right 
to  a  particular  mode  of  trial,  such 
agreement  is  binding  upon  the  par- 
ties until  the  case  is  finally  disposed 
of,  unless  such  agreement  is  abro- 
gated by  the  written  consent  of  both 
])arties,  or  one  of  the  parties  has 
been  relieved  from  its  operation  by 
an  order  of  the  court,  based  upon 
such  a  sho\\'ing  as  satisfies  the  court 
that  the  interests  of  justice  require 
tliat  he  should  be  so  relieved."  Brown 
r.  Pecliman,  55  S.  C.  555,  33  S.  E.  732. 
See  also  Farmers  Bank  v.  Sprigg,  11 
Md.  389;  Gallagher  v.  McBride,  66 
X.  .J.  L.  360,  49  Atl.  582. 

8  Ryan  v.  Beard,  74  Ala.  306 ;  ]\Ioyn- 
ahan  v.  Perkins,  36  Colo.  481,  10  Ann. 
Cas.  1061,  85  Pac.  1132;  Kirchheimer 
V.  Barrett,  125  111.  App.  56;  Central 
Branch  Union  Pac.  R.  Co.  v.  Slioup, 
28  Kan.  .304,  42  Am.  Rep.  163;  State 
r.  Buchanan,  Wright  (Ohio)  233; 
Weisbrod  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  20 
Wis.  419. 


§  198] 


LAW    PARTNEKSIIIPS. 


:U9 


that  during  the  progress  of  a  trial,  and  to  hasten  it,  counsel  waive 
the  production  by  the  opposite  party  of  formal  proof  of  some 
fact,  intending  to  rest  their  case  on  some  other  matter ;  and  this, 
which  is  done  for  the  mere  purpose  of  that  trial  alone,  and  for  the 
sake  of  facilitating  it,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  such  a  formal 
admission  of  fact,  as  would  be  binding  in  all  subse(|uent  progress 
of  the  case.^  Where  the  scope  and  intent  of  an  admission  is  uncer- 
tain, the  matter  must  be  left  to  the  jury  for  its  determination.^" 
So,  too,  a  concession  made  by  counsel  in  his  client's  presence,  in 
conducting  an  argument  before  the  court,  in  answer  to  a  question 
of  one  of  the  justices  as  to  his  contention,  is  regarded  as  having 
been  made  for  the  purpose  of  that  hearing,  and  it  cannot  be  intro- 
duced in  evidence  at  a  new  trial  of  the  case  as  an  admission. ^^ 
^Vdmissions  made  on  one  trial  are  not,  of  course,  competent  evi- 
dence in  another  suit  or  legal  proceeding  in  which  different  issues 
are  involved. ■^^  An  admission  which  has  been  properly  withdrawn 
cannot  be  introduced  in  evidence  on  a  subsequent  trial  of  the  same 
action  ;  ^^  but,  in  order  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  the  admission 
in  evidence,  notice  of  its  v/itlidrawal  should  be  given  by  counsel,^* 
prior  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  trial. ^^  It  has  been  held  that 
an  agreement  "to  admit  on  the  trial"  certain  facts,  cannot  be  with- 


9  Central  Brancli  Union  Pac.  R.  Co. 
r.  Shoup,  28  Kan.  394,  42  Am.  Rep. 
]6.3. 

10  Central  Branch  Union  Pac.  R. 
Co.  V.  Shoup.  28  Kan.  .394,  42  Am. 
Rep.    163. 

11  Cadigan  v.  Crabtree,  ]92  Mass. 
233,  78  X.  E.  412.  And  to  the  same 
effect  see  Dorsey  r.  Gassaway.  2  Har. 
.1-  J.   (Md.)    402,  3  Am.  Dec.  -l.JT. 

12  Miller  v.  U.  S.,  133  Fed.  337.  GO 
C.  C.  A.  399;  Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Sullivan,  173  Fed.  456.  97  C.  C.  A.  1  ; 
Wilkins  r.  Stidoer,  22  Cal.  231,  83 
Am.  Dec.  64:  Harrison  v.  Baker.  5 
I.itt.  (Ky.)  250;  Nichols  v.  Jones,  32 
Mo.  App.  657;  Elting  r.  Scott,  2 
Jolms.    (N.  Y.)    157. 

13  Hays  r.  Hynds,  28  Ind.  531.  See 
also    Collcdge   v.   Horn,    3    Bing.    119, 


11  E.  C.  L.  59.  Compare  Perry  v. 
Simpson  Waterproof  Mfg.  Co.,  40 
Conn.  313;  Shipman  v.  Haynes,  15 
La.  363. 

An  admission  that  a  deed  "was 
duly  executed  and  delivered"  was 
held  inadmissible,  where  it  appeared 
that  it  had  been  made  in  ignorance  of 
the  facts  and  that  notice  of  its  with- 
drawal had  been  given  the  opposing 
counsel  a  reasonable  time  before  the 
retrial  of  the  case.  Dancri  r.  Gazzo- 
la.  2  Cal.  App.  351,  83  Pac.  455. 

14  Elton  v.  Larkins,  5  C.  &  P.  385, 
24  E.  C.  L.  372,  1   M.  &  Rob.  196. 

15  A  notice  of  withdrawal  is  given 
too  late  where  it  is  not  given  until 
after  the  beginning  of  the  subsequent 
trial  of  the  case.  Hargroves  v.  Redd, 
43  Ga.  142. 


150 


LAW    PARTNERSHIPS. 


[§   198 


drawn. ^^  AVhere  the  issiie  between  the  parties  to  a  suit  is  the 
value  at  a  given  time  of  certain  land  owned  by  one  of  theui,  an 
affidavit  nuide  by  the  attorney  and  agent  of  the  owner,  filed  with 
the  taxing  authorities  about  two  years  before,  stating  the  value 
of  the  property,  is  admissible  against  the  owner  as  a  declaration 
by  him  through  his  agent  against  interest.^'' 


16  Where  the  admission  is  prefaced 
by  the  statement  that  "we  hereby 
agree  to  admit  on  the  trial  of  this 
cause,"  etc.,  a  notice  of  witlidrawal 
will  not  be  available.  Doe  c.  Bird,  7 
('.  &  P.  6,  32  E.  C.  L.  415;  as  the  ex- 
pression   "on    the    trial"    applies    to 


every  trial  which  may  take  place  by 
the  direction  of  the  court.  Pulton  v. 
Larkins,  5  C.  &  P.  385,  24  E.  C.  L. 
372,  1  M.  &  Rob.  196. 

17  Shoemaker     Co.    v.    Munsey,    37 
App.  Cas.  (D.  C.)  95. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SCOPE  OF  ATTORNEY'S  AUTHORITY— DELEGATION  OF  AUTHORITY- 
RATIFICATION  OF  UNAUTHORIZED  ACTS. 

In  General. 

§  199.  General  Rule. 

200.  Assent  to  Assignment  for  Creditors,   and  Resistance  to  Discharge   of 

Bankrupt. 

201.  Executing  Bond  for  Client. 

202.  Making  or  Altering  Contracts. 

Disposition  of  Glioses  and  Other  Property — Collection  and  Receipt  of  Money. 

203.  Disposition  of  Client's  Choses  or  Other  Property. 

204.  Receipt  of  Money  for  Client  Generally. 

205.  On  Claims  Held  for  Collection. 

206.  Right  to  Demand  Payment. 

207.  Extending  Time  of  Payment. 

208.  Receipt  of  Money  Outside  Scope  of  Employment. 

209.  Authority  to  Resort  to  Criminal  Proceedings. 

Delegation  of  Authority. 

210.  Generally. 

Rafificatioti  of  Unauthorized  Acts. 

211.  Generally. 

212.  Ratification  by  Adopting  or  Accepting  Benefits  of    Attorney's  Acts. 

213.  Ratification  by  Failing  to  Object. 

214.  Laches  as  Ratification. 

In  General. 

§  199.  General  Rule.  —  The  general  rule  is  that  an  attorney 
has  implied  authority  to  do  anything  necessarily  incidental  to  the 
discharge  of  the  purpose  for  Avhich  he  was  retained,^  in  or  out  of 

^United  .Sffares.— Bonnifield  v.  28  Ala.  711,  65  Am.  Dec.  380;  Robin- 
Tliorp,  71  Fed.  924.  son  r.  Murphy,  69  Ala.  547. 

Alabama. — Albertson     v.     Goldsby,  California. — Alexander      v.      Dena- 

351 


352 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§  1!^)9 


court.^  Indeed,  it  has  been  said  that,  within  the  scope  of  his 
employment,  there  is  nothing  that  connscl  mav  not  do  in  the  inter- 
est of  his  client  provided  the  manner  of  doing  it  is  courteous  and 
respectful.^  Thus  he  may  inspect  public  records  in  which  his 
client  is  interested,^  and  he  may  go  within  the  walls  of  a  prison 
to  consult  with  his  client  at  all  reasonable  hours  of  the  day,  and, 
if  he  is  denied  admittance,  summary  redress  may  be  had.^  Where 
an  attorney  does  wdiat  he  has  authority  to  do,  and  more,  his  act 
is  good  to  the  extent  of  his  authority ;  and  where  he  stops  short  of 
his  authority,  if  the  object  of  the  power  be  accomplished,  his  act 
is  also  good.^  But  the  acts  of  an  attorney  beyond  the  scope  of  his 
authority  do  not  bind  his  client^    Thus  the  general  employment  of 


veaiix.   o3   Cal.  G63;    Duff  r.  Duff,  71 
Cal.  513,  12  Pac.  570. 

Connecticut. — Derwort  v.  Looiner, 
21  Conn.  255. 

Illinois. — Lanum  v.  Patterson,  143 
111.   App.  248. 

Louisiana. — Curtis  v.  Union  Home- 
stead Assoc.,   126  La.  059,  53  So.  63. 

Massachusetts. — Moulton  v.  Bow- 
ker,  115  Mass.  40,  15  Am.  Rep.  72. 

\ew  York. — Gorham  r.  Gale,  7 
Cow.  744,  17  Am.  Dec.  549;  Welsh  r. 
Cochran,  63  X.  Y.  ISl,  20  Am.  Rep. 
519. 

Xorth  Carolina. — Asheville  Supply, 
etc.,  Co.  r.  Machin,  150  X.  C.  744,  64 
S.  E.  887. 

Ohio. — Garrett  r.  Ilanshue.  53  Ohio 
St.  482,  42  X.  E.  256.  35  L.ll.A.  ;!2!. 

South  Carolina. — Annely  r.  Do 
Saussure,  12  S.  C.  488. 

.S'owt/i  Dakota. — Fox  r.  Deerin^,  7 
S.  D.  443,  64  X.  W.  520. 

Tennessee. — Dooley  r.  Doolcy,  '.) 
Jjc-d  306;  Rojrers  r.  Rof,'ers,  35  S.  W. 
8!)0. 

\V jiominn.  W  .  \\  .  Kimliall  Co.  r. 
Payne,  0  Wyo.  441,  64  Pac.  673. 

2  Moulton  r.  Howkcr.  115  M;iss.  36, 
1.-,    \m.    K.-i-.   72. 

3  \\  rii'ht  V.  Stiitc.   IS  (ia.  'M'-). 


4  Brewer  v.  Watson,  61  Ala.  310. 
An   attorney  at  law  may  maintain 

an  action  for  damages  against  a 
state  auditor  for  refusing  to  allow 
him  to  inspect  a  "tax  ledger"  that 
contains  entries  in  wliieli  liis  client 
is  interested.  Brewer  /".  Watson,  65 
Ala.  88. 

But  the  officer  having  custody  of 
books,  other  than  judicial  records, 
may  require  satisfactory  evidence  of 
the  attorney's  authority.  Brewer  r. 
Watson.  71  Ala.  299,  46  Am.  Rep.  318. 

5  Ex  p.  :\IcClelan.  1  Wheel.  Crim. 
Cas.    (X.  Y.)    303. 

6  ^ilissouri  Bank  r.  INIcKniglit,  2 
Mo.  42. 

7  United  fitates. — Stone  r.  Bank  of 
Commerce,  174  U.  S.  412,  19  S.  Ct. 
747.  43  r.  S.  (L.  ed.)  1028;  Horse- 
slioe  Min.  Co.  /".  Miners'  Ore  Samp- 
ling Co..  147  Vo(\.  517,  77  C.  C.  A. 
213. 

Illinois.— Bell  r.  Earwell,  ISO  111. 
414,  59  X.  E.  '.)r)r}.  affirmin;/  SO  111. 
Ajjp.  638. 

h'ehtiicki/. — Ilandley  r.  Statelor. 
Litt.  Sel.  Cas.  I8(i. 

U  iiliif/nn. — C.ott  r.  Brigliam,  41 
Mich.  227.  2  X.  \V.  5. 

Xeio  Jersey. — Mutual   L.  Ins.  Co. 


199] 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


353 


an  attorney  in  reference  to  a  particnlar  snbject,  cannot  be  held 
to  extend  to  a  matter,  connected  therewith,  in  which  he  is  person- 
ally interested  in  opposition  to  the  interests  of  his  client.^  So,  an 
attorney's  unlawfnl  conduct  cannot  affect  his  client.^  Xor  can 
an  attorney  bind  his  client  as  to  matters  collateral  to  his  employ- 
ment/" sncli  as  the  acknowledgment  of  a  debt.^^  So,  an  unanthor- 
ized  agreement  by  the  general  attorney  of  a  corporation,  that  the 
company  should  employ  a  certain  person  for  life,  as  a  partial  satis- 
faction of  a  claim  for  damages,  is  without  the  scope  of  his  au- 
thority.^^ The  rules  of  law  applicable  to  principal  and  agent  con- 
trol the  relation  between  attorney  and  client,  and  persons  dealing 
with  the  attorney  are  bound  to  take  notice  of  the  extent  of  his 
authority.^^     But  secret  limitations  on  the  powers  of  an  attorney 


V.  Pinner,  43  X.  J.  Eq.  52,  30  Atl. 
1 84 ;  Callaway  v.  Equitable  Trust  Co., 
67  N.  J.  L.  44,  50  Atl.  900. 

North  Dakota. — McLain  v.  Xurn- 
berg,  16  N.  D.  144,  112  N.  W.  243. 

O/iio.— Critclifiold  v.  Porter,  3 
Ohio  518. 

Texas. — Merritt  v.  Clow,  2  Tex. 
582. 

8  Gott  V.  Brigham,  41  Mich.  227,  2 
N.  W,  5,  wherein  it  was  said:  "If 
claims  were  placed  in  his  hands  for 
collection,  with  authority  to  compro- 
mise whenever  he  considered  it  for 
his  client's  benefit  so  to  do,  and 
among  such  claims  was  one  upon 
which  he  was  personally  liable,  would 
his  authority  extend  to  such  a  case? 
If  employed  to  sell  property  he  could 
not  become  the  purchaser;  or  if  to 
buy,  he  could  not  purchase  property 
in  which  he  had  an  interest;  or  if 
money  was  entrusted  to  him  for  loan, 
lie  could  not  become  the  borrower,  un- 
less the  client  was  made  fully  ac- 
quainted with  all  the  facts  and 
consented  thereto,  or  ratified  the  trans- 
action. In  fact,  a  general  employ- 
ment will  not  be  held  to  extend  to 
matters  where  the  interests  of  the 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 23. 


parties  would  come  in  conflict.  The 
law  will  not  permit  a  general  em- 
ployment to  extend  to  such  cases." 

9  J,  M.  Robinson  &  Co.  v.  Pikeville 
Bank,  146  Ky.  538,  142  S.  W.  1065, 
37  L.R.A.(N.S.)  1186;  Hamel  v. 
Brooklyn  Heights  R.  Co.,  59  App. 
Div.  135,  69  N.  Y.  S.  106.  See  also 
State  V.  Faulkner,  175  Mo.  540,  75  S. 
W.   110. 

10  Meriden  Hydro-Carbon  Arc  Light 
Co.  V.  Anderson,  111  111.  App.  449; 
Wonderly  v.  Martin,  69  Mo.  App.  84. 

"Hill  V.  Barlow,  6  Rob.  (La.) 
142;  Thomas  v.  Wiltbank,  6  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    477. 

18  Nephew  v.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  128  Mich.  599,  87  N.  W.  753,  8 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  784.  See  also  Haynes 
V.  Tacoma,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  7  Wasli.  211, 
34  Pac.  922;  Doran  V.  Great  West- 
ern R.  Co.,  14  U.  C.  Q.  B.  403. 

13  Robinson  V.  Murphy,  69  Ala. 
548;  Nelson  v.  Nelson,  111  Minn.  183, 
126  N.  W.  731,  137  Am.  St.  Rep.  549, 
31    L.R.A.(N.S.)    523. 

When  one  depends  on  the  promise 
of  the  attorney  of  a  party  to  an  ac- 
tion, he  is  bound  to  know  the  extent 
of     the     attorney's     authority,     and 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§   200 


are  uot  binding  on  persons  dealing  with  liim  in  good  faith,  believ- 
ing him  to  possess  the  usual  and  ordinary  powers  of  an  attorney." 
The  assumption  of  an  attorney  at  law,  even  if  generally  retained, 
of  authority  to  act  for  his  principal  outside  of  the  due  conduct 
of  litigation,  does  not  create  any  presumption  of  actual  authority, 
but  his  acts  must  be  shown  to  be  within  the  scope  of  his  authority 
in  order  to  bind  his  principal.^* 

§  200.  Assent  to  Assignment  for  Creditors,  and  Resistance 
to  Discharge  of  Bankrupt.  —  An  attorney  at  law,  having  con- 
fided to  him  by  creditors  a  discretionary  power  to  collect  a  debt, 
may,  in  the  exercise  of  his  discretion,  bind  his  clients  by  assent- 
ing to  an  assignment  for  the  benefit  of  creditors.'^®  But  it  seems 
that  the  fact  that  one  is  the  attorney  of  record  in  a  judgment,  does 
not  warrant  him  in  accepting  a  deed  of  trust  for  his  client  without 
being  specially  authorized  to  do  so.^'  Under  the  present  Bank- 
ruptcy Act  an  objection  to  the  granting  of  a  discharge  must  be 
made  by  "the  trustees  or  other  parties  in  interest;''^*  and  to  be 
a  "party  in  interest"  within  the  purview  of  this  provision,  one 
must  have  a  pecuniary  interest.^^  Exceptional  circumstances,  how- 
ever, will  warrant  the  sigTiing  and  verification  of  objections  to  a 
discharge  by  the  attorney  of  the  objectors,^"  the  reason  therefor 
being  disclosed  in  the  affidavit;  ^  but  the  practice  is  objectionable, 
and  should  only  be  adopted  where  no  other  course  is  open.^     An 


prove  the  same,  or  a  ratification  of 
the  attorney's  acts.  Nutting  v.  Kings 
County  El.  R.  Co.,  91  Hun  251,  36  N. 
V.  S.  142. 

With  respect  to  the  condtict  of  liti- 
qation,  liowever,  an  attorney  is  more 
than  an  agent.  See  infra,  §  246  et 
seq. 

14  State  r.  Hawkins,  28  .Mo.  ;{66; 
Planters'  Bank  v.  Massey,  2  Ileisk. 
(Teiin.)  1502;  Class  v.  Davidson,  J 
Haxt.   (Tenn.)   49. 

16  Horseshnc  M  in.  C'o. 
Ore  Sampling.'  (  o.,  147  I 
C.   C.  A.  2 1.'!. 

leCordrm      r.     ((.olidi.. 


r.    IMinera' 
d.   .117,    77 


I      Siiinii. 


ry.il,    1(J    I'-'d.   <'u.s.   X(i.   r>,Wii\    Vernon 


V.  Morton,  8  Dana  (Ky.)  247;  Jones 
f.  Horsey,  4  Md.  306,  59  Am.  Dec.  81 ; 
Hatch  V.  Smith,  5  Mass.  42. 

i7Doub  v.  Barnes,  4  Gill   (Md.)    1. 

18  Section  14b  of  the  Bankruptcy 
Act  (Fed.  Stat.  Annot.  Supp.  1912, 
pp.  549.  550). 

19  In  re  Levey,  133  Fed.  572,  13  Am. 
Bankr.  Bep.  314. 

20  In  re  Milgraum.  129  Fed.  827,  12 
Am.   Bankr.  Rep.  306. 

lln  re  Baerncopf.  117  Fed.  975,  9 
Am.    Bankr.  Rep.    133. 

2  In  re  iMilgnuiin,  129  Fed.  827,  12 
Am.  Hatdvr.  Kep.  306;  In  re  Randall, 
159  Fed.  298,  20  Am.  Bankr.  Rep.  305. 


§   -^01] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


355 


attorney  may  alpo  use  his  discretion  in  witlidrawing  resistance  to 
the  discharge  of  a  bankrupt.^ 

§  201.  Executing  Bond  for  Client.  —  The  general  rule  is 
that  an  attorney  has  no  inij)lie(l  authority  to  execute  a  bond  on 
behalf  of  his  client;  thus  he  cannot  so  execute  an  appeal  bond;  * 
although  in  some  instances  the  validity  of  such  execution  has  been 
recognized  M'here  the  bond  was  not  required  to  be  under  seal.^  Nor 
has  an  attorney  any  implied  authority  to  execute  a  replevin,^  in- 
junction,' or  indemnity  bond.®  But  it  has  been  held  that  an  attor- 
ney has  implied  authority  to  bind  his  client  by  sigTiing  for  him 
an  attachment  bond;  this  is  on  the  theory  that  such  bond  is  a 
necessary  incident  of  the  purpose  of  the  attorney's  employment 
in  such  a  case,^  and  by  statute  in  Georgia  the  attorney  for  plain- 


3  Bennett  r.  Phillips,  57  la.  174,  10 
N.  W.  328. 

4Scliofield  V.  Felt,  10  Colo.  146,  14 
Pac.  128;  Gordon  v.  Camp,  2  Fla.  23; 
Love  V.  Sheffelin,  7  Fla.  40;  Clark  v. 
Courser,  29  N.  H.  170;  In  re  Hol- 
brook,  5  Cow.  (X.  Y.)  35;  Schaffer  v. 
Troutwein,  (Okla.)  129  Pac.  C90; 
Murray  v.  Peckam,  15  R.  I.  297,  3 
Atl.  662;  Coles  v.  Anderson,  8 
Humph.  (Tenn.)  489.  See,  however, 
Adams  v.  Robinson,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 
461. 

Where  an  appeal  is  taken  by  a 
wife,  whose  husband  is  not  a  party 
to  the  suit,  and  is  unrepresented  by 
counsel  of  record,  the  signature  of 
the  bond  of  appeal,  by  the  attorney  of 
the  wife,  in  the  name  of  the  husband, 
is  not  sufficient  evidence  of  the  lat- 
ter's  authorization  to  maintain  the 
appeal,  which  must  therefore  be  dis- 
missed. Gibson  r.  Hitclicock,  35  La. 
Ann.  1201. 

5  Bach  V.  Ballard,  13  La.  Ann.  487; 
Adams  v.  Robinson,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 
462. 

It  is  questionable  whether,  in  sucli 


cases,  the  client  could  not  repudiate 
liis  attorney's  act,  and  it  may  be  ad- 
visable to  file  exceptions  as  a  matter 
of  precaution. 

6  Narraguagus  Land  Proprietors  r. 
Wentworth,  36  Me.  339. 

7  State  Bank  v.  Wilson,  19  La.  Ann. 
]  ;  Gauthier  (;.  Gardenal,  44  La.  Ann. 
884,  11  So.  463;  Luchini  v.  Police 
Jury,  126  La.  972,  21  Ann.  Cas.  59, 
53  So.  68. 

8  Luce  V.  Foster,  42  Neb.  818,  60 
N.  W.  1027.  Compare  Schoregge  v. 
Gordon,  29  Minn.  367,  13  N.  W.  194. 

9  Alexander  v.  Burns,  6  La.  Ann. 
704 ;  Trowbridge  V.  Weir,  6  La.  Ann. 
706.  See  also  Painter  v.  Gibson,  88 
la.  120,  55  N.  W.  84. 

Compare  Wetmore  v.  Daffin,  5  La. 
Ann.  496,  wlierein  it  was  held  that 
an  attorney  of  one  state,  having  a 
general  retainer  to  collect  a  debt 
against  a  resident  thereof,  has  no  au- 
thority to  execute  a  bond  in  the  name 
of  his  nonresident  client,  for  the  is- 
suance of  an  attachment  against  the 
debtor  in  another  state,  to  which  he 
iiad  temporarily  gone. 


356 


SCOrE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§  202 


tiff  in  certiorari  may  execute  the  bond.^°  Counsel  may,  of  course, 
be  authorized  to  execute  bonds  in  behalf  of  their  clients,  and 
parol  authority  will  be  sufficient  ^^  excepting  as  to  instruments 
required  to  be  under  seal.^^  So,  also,  the  unauthorized  execution 
of  a  bond  by  an  attorney  may  be  so  ratified  as  to  validate  it.^^ 
An  attorney  may,  of  course,  execute  a  bond  as  principal,^*  or  as 
authorized  by  statute,^^  and  may  become  a  surety  thereon,  in  the 
absence  of  a  regulation  to  the  contrary ;  but,  as  a  rule,  attorneys 
are  prohibited  from  becoming  sureties. ^^ 

§  202.  Making  or  Altering  Contracts.  —  It  has  been  stated 
heretofore  that  an  attorney's  authority  to  bind  his  client  extends 
only  to  such  acts  and  agreements  as  are  necessary  for  the  due 
prosecution  of  the  cause  or  business  in  connection  with  which  he 
has  been  employed ;  ^"^  he  has  no  implied  power  to  bind  his  client 
by  an  agreement  collateral  to,  and  independent  of,  the  subject- 
matter  of  his  employment ;  ^*  nor  can  an  attorney  alter  or  vary 
the  terms  of  a  contract  entered  into  bv  his  client. ^^    Thus  the  client 


10  Foley  &  Williams  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Bell,  4  Ga.  App.  447,  61  S.  E.  856. 

"Ford  V.  Williams,  13  N.  Y.  577, 
67  Am.  Dec.  83. 

12  Clark  v.  Courser,  29  N.  H.  170. 
See  also  Ford  r.  Williams,  13  N.  Y. 
577,  67  Am.  Dec.  83. 

iSXisbet  V.  Lawson,  1  Ga.  275; 
Narragiiagus  Land  Proprietors  v. 
Wentvvortli,  36  Me.  339.  See  also 
infra,  §  211. 

14  Simpson  r.  Knight,  12  Fla.  144; 
Cunningham  v.  Tucker,   14   Fla.  251. 

15  Dillon  V.  Watkins,  2  Speor  L. 
(S.  C.)   445. 

16  See  supra,  ii§  80,  81. 

17  See  supra,  §  199. 

18  California. — Ephraini  v.  Pacific 
Bank,  149  Cal.  222,  86  Pac.  507. 

^f ainc. —Irohind  r.  Todd,  36  Me. 
149. 

MiHstouri. — \\  oMilcrly  ''.  Miirtin,  (i9 
Mo.  .App.  84;  Pvatieari  r.  riiioii  Depot 
Co.,  80   .Mo.  App.  528. 

North    Dakota. — Mcl.-ain    v.    Nurn- 


berg,  16  N.  D.  144,  112  N.  W.  243. 

South  Carolina. — Annely  v.  DeSaus- 
sure,  12  S.  C.  488. 

Virginia. — Herbert  r.  Alexander,  2 
Call  498. 

An  attorney  for  a  railroad  com- 
pany in  condemnation  proceedings 
has  not,  merely  by  virtue  of  his  re- 
tainer, power  to  bind  the  company  by 
an  agreement  for  the  construction  by 
the  company  of  a  cattle  pass  over  its 
line.  Doran  v.  Great  Western  R.  Co., 
14  U.  C.  Q.  B.  403. 

An  agreement  by  an  attorney  hold- 
ing for  collection  a  note  given  for 
corporate  stock  that,  if  the  stock 
slioiild  prove  worthless  within  a  speci- 
fied time,  a  renewal  note  should  be 
surrendered  to  tlie  maker  on  a  re- 
turn of  tiie  stock,  binds  the  payee. 
r.akiT  Silver  Miii.  Co.  r.  Stciniiiger, 
I    W'nik.    (  I'a.)    .il. 

19  i'ickett  r.  Merchants'  Nat.  Hank, 
32  Ark.  346;  Lanum  V.  Patterson,  143 


I 


§   202] 


SCOPE   OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


367 


will  not  be  bound  by  the  nnanthorized  agreement  of  his  attorney 
to  convey  land  ^°  or  other  property ;  ^  nor  by  his  agreement  with, 
the  owner  of  an  adjoining  lot,  whose  house  projects  over  the  prop- 
erty of  his  client,  that  the  projections  may  remain  for  a  year  in 
consideration  of  a  certain  sum ;  ^  nor  by  an  agreement  which  would 
effect  an  equitable  conversion ;  ^  nor  by  a  contract  of  indemnity.* 
So,  an  attorney  has  no  implied  authority  to  make  a  lease,  or 
confirm  an  imperfect  one,  or  to  perfect  an  inchoate  agreement  for 


111.    App.    244;    Mandeville    V.    Rey- 
nolds, 68  N.  Y.  528. 

20  Hagerman  v.  Bates,  5  Colo.  App. 
391,  38  Pac.  1100;  In  re  Amsterdam 
Ave.,  112  App.  Div.  160,  163,  165,  98 
N.  Y.  S.  331,  334;  Burkhardt  V. 
Schmidt,  10  Phila.  (Pa.)  118,  31  Leg. 
Int.  92;  Stilley  v.  McNeal,  219  Pa. 
St.  533,  69  Atl.  58;  Scully  V.  Book, 
3  Wash.  182,  28  Pac.  556. 

1  Kronschnable  v.  Knoblauch,  21 
Minn.  56;  Insurance  Co.  v.  Roberts, 
6  Phila.  (Pa.)  516,  25  Leg.  Int.  28. 

2  Walters  v.  Mitchell,  6  Cal.  App. 
410,  92  Pac.  315. 

3  Naglee  v.  IngersoU,  7  Pa.  St.  185. 

4  White  V.  Davidson,  8  Md.  169,  63 
Am.  Dec.  699. 

Where  a  client  instructs  his  at- 
torney not  to  persevere  in  an  attach- 
ment of  goods  and  a  suit  unless  there 
is  a  good  prospect  of  succes?,  and  the 
attorney  knows  or  might  know  that 
the  proceeds  of  the  goods  would  be 
swallowed  up  by  judgments  on  prior 
attachments,  he  has  no  authority  to 
bind  his  client  by  a  writing  of  in- 
demnity to  the  attaching  officer. 
Nutt  V.  Merrill,  40  Me.  237. 

Compare  Clark  v.  Randall,  9  Wis. 
135,  76  Am.  Dec.  252,  wherein  it  was 
held  that  an  attorney  for  a  client  re- 
siding in  another  state  is  authorized 
to  use  all  reasonable  and  usual  means 
to  secure  his  client's  claim ;  he  is  au- 


thorized to  indemnify'  an  officer  for 
making  a  levy  directed  by  him  in 
good  faith  and  upon  reasonable 
grounds,  and,  if  he  indemnifies  the 
officer  by  his  own  bond,  he  may  re- 
cover from  his  client  what  he  is 
obliged  to  pay  thereon. 

Where  the  garnishee  in  an  attach- 
ment suit  was  induced  to  file  an  an- 
swer prepared  by  the  plaintiff's  at- 
torney, under  his  assurance  tliat  she 
should  be  protected  against  certain 
notes  outstanding  in  the  hands  of  a 
third  person,  the  agreement  was  held 
to  be  valid.  Hayes  v.  O'Connell,  9 
Ala.  488. 

An  attorney  for  clients  who  were 
nonresidents,  having  recovered  for 
them  a  judgment,  and  issued  execu- 
tion thereon,  executed  in  their  name 
and  on  their  behalf,  but  without  ex- 
press authority,  an  instrument  under 
seal,  indemnifying  the  sheriff'  against 
the  claim  of  a  third  party  to  prop- 
erty in  the  possession  of  the  judg- 
ment debtor,  upon  which  the  sheriff 
had  levied  the  execution,  which  in- 
demnity was  necessary  to  preserve 
and  continue  the  levy.  It  was  held 
that,  it  not  appearing  but  that  the 
attorney  acted  in  good  faith  and 
with  reasonable  discretion,  his  action 
was  within  the  scope  of  his  authority, 
even  after  judgment.  Schoregge  r. 
Gordon,  29  Minn.  367,  13  N.  W.  194. 


358 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTIIOKITY. 


[§   202 


a  lease ;  ^  uor  can  he  agree  to  accept  the  surrender  of  a  lease,® 
or  to  pay  a  sum  of  money  for  the  surrender  of  possession/  or  to 
pay  a  certain  rent/  or  to  bind  a  landlord  to  pay  for  improvements 
made  on  the  rented  premises/  or  to  pay  persons  employed  by  the 
attorney/"  or  to  support  a  debtor  in  jail/^  or  to  pay  a  broker's 
commissions/^  or  to  renew  an  indebtedness/^  or  to  create  a  trust/* 
or  to  bind  his  principal  by  stipulations  in  a  deed  of  trust  taken  to 
secure  the  debt  of  the  principal/*  or  to  pay  a  balance  due  on  a 
mortgage/®  or  to  suspend  proceedings  on  a  judgment/'  or  to  agree 
to  refund  money  voluntarily  paid  to  his  client  as  one  of  the  dis- 
tributees of  an  estate/*  or  to  contract  for  his  client  to  pay  the 
latter's  wife  a  sum  of  money  as  part  of  a  separation  agreement/^ 
or  to  employ  associate  counsel/"  or  to  take  a  case  out  of  the  statute 
of  limitations.^  The  unauthorized  agreements  of  an  attorney  may, 
of  course,  be  validated  by  ratification.^     The  burden  of  proving 


5  Howard  r.  Carpenter,  11  ^kld.  259. 

6  Johnstown  &  F.  E.  Co.  r.  Egbert, 
152  Pa.  St.  53,  25  Atl.  151. 

7  Stuck  V.  Ree.se,  15  la.  122. 

S  Hubbard  v.  Shaw,  12  Allen 
(Mass.)    120. 

9McMichen  r.  Brown,  10  Ga.  App. 
50G,  73  S.  E.  691. 

10  The  fact  that  the  attorney  of 
plaintiff  in  a  fi.  fa.  directed  the  sher- 
iff to  put  a  watchman  in  cliarge  of 
goods  levied  on,  does  not  imply  a 
promise  that  plaintiff  would  pay  for 
tiie  watchman's  services;  tiie  sheriff 
being  bound  to  keep  the  goods  safely. 
Deal  V.  Tower,  1  Phila.  (Pa.)  268, 
8  Leg.  Int.  238. 

"  Hogan  r.  Hutton,  20  N.  J.  L.  82. 

12  Callaway  r.  Equitable  Trust  Co., 
67  N.  J.  L.  44,  50  Atl.  900. 

13  Houghton  V.  Ellis,  19  Colo.  App. 
125,  73  Pae.   752. 

14  Ratican  r.  Union  Depot  Co.,  80 
Mr,.  App.  528. 

15  PciKJcxter  i;.  Vernon,  9  lliniiph, 
(Tcnn.)    84. 


iSTliomas  r.  Wilthank.  0  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    477.  36  Leg.  Int.  105. 

One  employed  both  as  attorney  and 
ayent  to  manage  and  conduct  pro- 
ceedings to  collect  a  chattel  mort- 
gage, has  authority  to  bind  his  client 
to  pay  off,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
property,  a  superior  lien  upon  it  in 
favor  of  another  creditor  which  is  be- 
ing enforced  by  levy,  and  thereby  free 
the  property  from  such  levy  and  lien. 
Rarfield  t'.  McCombs,  89  Ga.  799,  15 
S.  E.  666. 

17  Pendexter  r.  Vernon,  9  Humpli. 
(Tenn.)    84. 

18  Miller  v.  Hulme,  126  Pa.  St.  277. 
17  Atl.  587,  24  W.  N.  C.  131. 

19  Joseph  i\  Piatt,  130  App.  Div. 
478,  114  N.  Y.  S.  1065. 

so.Toluiston  r.  Baca,  13  X.  :\I.  338, 
85  J'ac.  237.     See  also  infra,  §  210. 

1  Pequaniick  Co.  r.  Brady,  1  Phila. 
(Pa.)    220,  8  Leg.  Int.    126. 

2  Hardin  r.  Osborne,  60  111.  93. 
See  also  infra,  §§  211-214. 


§  203] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTilORITY. 


359 


the  attorney's  authority,  or  the  ratification  of  his  act,  rests  with 
the  party  seeking  the  benefit  thereof.^ 

Disposifion  of  Chases  and  Other  Property — Collretion  and  Eeceipt 

of  Money. 

§  203.  Disposition  of  Client's  Choses  or  Other  Property,  — 
An  attorney  at  law  has  no  implied  authority  to  sell  or  assign  the 
claim  of  his  client,*  even  though  he  is  authorized  to  compromise 
it.^  Thus  where  a  note  has  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  an  attorney 
for  collection,  he  has  no  power  to  transfer  it  to  another;  ®  nor  can 


3  Brooks  r.  K<>ains,  SO  111.  r^AT. 

^Illinois. — Schroeder  r.  Wolf,  227 
111.  133.  81  N.  E.  13.  affirming  127  111. 
App.  506. 

Ohio.— Card  r.  Walbridge,  18  Ohio 
411. 

Pennsylvania. — Rowland  v.  Slate, 
58  Pa.  St.  196. 

South  Carolina. — Xoonan  r.  Gray, 
1  Bailoy  L.  437. 

Vermont. — Pcnniman  r.  Patchin,  5 
Vt.  346. 

In  Annoly  r.  DeSaussure,  12  S.  C. 
509,  it  was  said:  "The  relation  of 
attorney  and  client  implies  authority 
to  enforce  the  demands  of  his  client, 
of  obtaining  either  voluntary  or  co- 
ercive satisfaction  of  such  demands, 
and  to  bind  the  client  as  a  party  liti- 
gant in  certain  matters  appertaining 
to  the  conduct  of  causes;  but  it  does 
not  confer  a  general  power  of  attor- 
ney to  contract  independently  in  re- 
lation to  such  demands,  nor  to 
transfer  such  demands  to  a  third 
party.  The  proper  duty  of  a  coun- 
selor is  to  advise  his  clients:  if  he 
becomes  a  negotiator,  a  business  man- 
ager, it  is  through  some  otlier  form  of 
authorization  than  that  implied  in 
being  selected  as  a  legal  adviser 
merely." 


5  Mayer  r.  Blease,  4  S.  C.  10.  See 
also  infra,  §  215  et  seq.' 

^Alabama. — Craig  r.  Ely,  5  Stew. 
&  P.  354. 

Indiana. — Russell  r.  Drummond,  6 
Ind.  216. 

Kansas. — Eggan  r.  Briggs,  23  Kan. 
710. 

Miehigan. — Brown  i'.  People's  Xat. 
Bank,  170  JVIicli.  416,  136  N.  W.  506, 

Missouri. — Goodfellow  r.  Landis,  36 
Mo.  168;  Feiner  r.  Puetz,  77  Mo.  App. 
405. 

\eii:  Hampshire. — White  r.  Hil- 
dreth,  13  N.  H.  104;  Child  v.  Eureka 
Powder  Works,  44  N.  H.  354. 

l^ew  Jersey. — Terhune  r.  Colton,  ]0 
X.   J.  Eq.   21. 

\orth  Carolina. — Slierrill  r.  Wei- 
siger  Clothing  Co.,  114  X.  C.  436,  19 
S.  E.  365. 

Ohio. — Card  r.  Walbridge.  18  Ohio 
411. 

Pennsylvania. — Rowland  r.  Slate, 
58  Pa.  St.  196. 

South  Carolina. — Xoonan  r.  Gray,  I 
Bailey  L.  437. 

Vermont. — Penniman  r.  Patchin,  5 
Vt.  346. 

But  see  Alden  r.  Dyer,  92  ^Vlinn.  134, 
99  X.  W.  784,  wherein  it  appears  tiiat 
a  note,   to  which  was  attached  a  condi- 


360 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTIIOIIITY. 


[§   203 


he  discount,'  exchange,^  or  indorse  it,  for  that  purpose ;  ^  and 
where  the  client's  chose  is  so  transferred,  assumpsit  for  money 
had  and  received  lies  in  his  favor  against  the  assignee.^"  So,  an 
attorney  has  no  implied  power  to  authorize  the  sale  of  his  client's 
land  ^^  or  personal  property, ^^  or  to  transfer  a  certificate  of  pur- 
chase therefor, ^^  or  a  bond  taken  in  payment  of  his  client's  judg- 
ment.^* An  attorney  who  receives  money  for  his  client  is  not 
justified  in  paying  it  to  a  third  person,  who  claims  it,  without  in- 
demnity; nor  is  he  justified,  after  notice  of  the  claim,  in  paying 
it  over  to  his  principal,  until  the  rights  of  the  claimant  are  set- 
tled.^^     So,  an  attorney  has  no  authority,  by  the  mere  virtue  of 


lion  that  the  ownership  of  the  prop- 
erty for  which  it  was  given  should 
remain  in  the  vendor  upon  default  of 
payment,  was  sent  to  an  attorney,  in 
another  state,  Avho  brought  action  to 
recover  the  debt,  and  secured  judg- 
ment thereon.  It  was  held  that  the 
sending  of  the  note  and  conditional 
agreement  to  the  attorney  presum- 
ably authorized  the  latter  to  use  all 
lawful  means  to  collect  the  debt  with- 
in his  judgment  and  discretion. 

7Goodfellow  V.  Landis,  36  Mo.  168. 

8  Tankersley  c.  Anderson,  4  Desaus. 
(S.  C.)   44. 

9\Yliite  r.  Hildreth,  13  N.  H.  104; 
Chatham  Xat.  Bank  /;.  Hochstadter, 
27  Alb.  L.  J.  (N.  Y.)  133;  Sherrill  v. 
Weisiger  Clothing  Co.,  114  N.  C.  436, 
19  S.  E.  30."). 

lOTcnniman   r.   Patcliin,  5  Vt.  346. 

11  Spinks  V.  Athens  Sav.  Bank,  108 
Ga.  376,  33  S.  E.  1003;  Corbin  f.  Mul- 
ligan, 1  Bush  (Ky.)  2!)7:  Gray  v. 
Howell,  20.5  Pa.  St.  211,  54  Atl.  774. 

12  Davis  V.  Ferrin,  97  Me.  146,  53 
Atl.  1006. 

The  gciicial  <mi|iI(iviiii?i1  of  :ni  at- 
torney id  hiw  as  coiinsil  Uiv  <hc 
receiver  of  a  ljankrii|it.  docs  not 
niitliorize  tlu'  attoiney  to  ni;il<c  a  sale 
of   tlie   iiiiiikrnpt's  assets,   nor  to   take 


the  proceeds  thereof.  Mason  v.  Wol- 
kowich,  150  Fed.  699,  80  C.  C.  A.  435, 
10  L.R.A.(N.S.)  765. 

An  agreement  by  the  bankrupt's 
attorney  with  a  creditor  that  the 
bankrupt  would  keep  certain  goods 
sold  to  him  by  the  creditor,  and  that 
the  claim  for  the  value  thereof  shonUl 
not  be  proven  in  bankruptcy,  and  that 
tliey  would  be  paid  for. was  not  bind- 
ing on  the  bankrupt,  where  he  neither 
authorized,  ratified,  nor  received  any 
benefits  therefrom.  Gambrell  v. 
Southern  Molina  Plow  Co.,  (Miss.) 
60  So.  1012. 

13  A  purchase  of  land  in  his  own 
name  made  by  the  attorney  of  an  exe- 
cution plaintifl',  taking  to  himself  a 
certificate  of  purchase,  and  merely 
paying  tlie  costs,  but  no  part  of  the 
execution,  and,  as  attorney,  giving  the 
slieriflf  a  receipt  for  the  amount  of  the 
judgment,  is  the  purchase  of  the  exe- 
cution plaintiff ;  and  such  attorney 
cannot  without  his  authority  assign 
the  certificate  of  purchase.  Hays  v. 
Cassell,  70  111.  660.  See  also  supro, 
§§  158,  166. 

14  Kirk  V.  Glover,  5  Stew.  &  P. 
(Ala.)   340. 

15  Ppyser  r.  Wilcox,  04  How.  Pr. 
(N.  y.)    525. 


§  204] 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


361 


his  relationship,  to  apply  the  property  of  the  client  to  the  pay- 
ment of  the  client's  debts.^®  Nor  has  an  attorney  any  implied 
authority  to  distribute  money  received  for  his  client ;  ^^  thus  an 
attorney  authorized  by  salvors  to  settle  their  claims  against  the 
vessel,  has  no  authority  to  distribute  money  received  thereon,  on 
his  own  judgment,  among  the  salvors,  or  to  pay  charges  against 
the  fund.'^*  Where  a  client  delivers  money  to  his  attorney  for  dis- 
tribution to  certain  persons,  the  deposit  thereof  by  the  attorney 
in  a  bank  to  his  own  credit  does  not  constitute  a  conversion  where 
the  amount  is  kept  good  until  the  client  directs  a  different  dis- 
position of  the  money.^^ 

§  204.  Receipt  of  Money  for  Client  Generally.  —  An  attor- 
ney at  law  undoubtedly  has  the  right  to  receive  money  in  pay- 
ment of  the  debt  or  demand  of  his  client,  for  the  collection  or 
enforcement  of  w^hich  the  attorney  was  employed.^"     The  power 


16  Gordon  v.  Sanborn,  (Tex.)  35  S. 
W.  201. 

Disposition  of  Money  Deposited  for 
Bail. — Where  one  arrested  on  a  charge 
of  violating  a  citv  ordinance  gave  an 
invalid  recognizance  in  if.SOO  to  appear 
for  trial,  but  failed  to  appear,  and 
money  to  that  amount,  taken  from 
hira  by  the  arresting  officer,  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  tlie  city  attor- 
ney, it  was  held  that  an  attorney 
merely  retained  in  the  defense  had  no 
authority  to  direct  that  the  money  be 
paid  into  the  city  treasury.  Bloom- 
ington  V.  Heiland,  67  111.  27S. 

1' Hale  v.  Passmorc,  4  Dana  (Ky.) 
70.  See  also  White  r.  Ward,  157  Ala. 
345,  47  So.  166,  18  L.R.A.(N.S.)  568; 
Jliller  r.  Pcnniman  &  Bro.,  110  Va. 
780.  67  S.  E.  516. 

Where  the  surplus  arising  from  the 
sale  of  a  homestead  under  a  mortgage 
foreclosure  is,  under  order  of  the 
court,  paid  to  the  attorney  of  a  judg- 
ment creditor  of  the  mortgagor,  in 
satisfaction  of  his  judgment,  the  at- 


torney is  liable  to  the  mortgagor  for 
any  part  of  the  amount  not  turned 
over  to  his  client.  Mitchell  i:.  ^lil- 
hoan,  11   Kan.  617. 

Compare  Webb  v.  White,  18  Tex. 
572,  wherein  it  was  held  that  an  at- 
torney, haviiig  in  his  control  four  sev- 
eral executions  against  an  insolvent 
defendant,  levied  three  of  them  upon 
cotton,  and  took  it  at  an  agreed  price 
per  pound,  the  fourth  execution  being 
at  the  time  only  ordered,  and  not  in 
the  officer's  hands,  had  the  right  to 
apply  the  amount  pro  rata  among  all 
four  executions. 

18  Hawkins  v.  Avery,  32  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)    551. 

isPeirce  v.  Palmer,  31  R.  I.  432, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912B  181,  77  Atl.  201. 

20  United  States. — Bates  v.  Seabury, 
1  Sprague  433,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,104; 
Abrahamson  v.  The  Canonicus,  65 
Fed.  525. 

Alabama. — Henderson  r.  Planters' 
&  Jilerchants'  Bank,  59  So.  493. 


362 


SCOPE  OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§   204 


to  sue  for  a  debt  implies  the  power  to  collect  it.^  Thus  the  attor- 
ney of  record  may  receive  payment  of  a  judgment,^  or  execution ;  ' 
and  where  a  debtor  pays  money  to  an  attorney  who  represents 
several  creditors,  and  does  not  designate  the  debt  to  which  he 
wishes  it  to  be  applied,  the  attorney  may  apply  it.*  Payment  by 
the  clerk  of  a  court,  in  wdiich  money  is  deposited,  to  the  attorney 
of  the  party  entitled  to  receive  it,  will  discharge  the  clerk  from  all 
liability ;  ^  but,  should  it  be  questioned,  the  court  may  order  the 
attorney  to  show  his  authority  to  receive  such  money.^  Tender  of 
the  amount  admitted  to  be  due  may  also  be  made  to  the  duly 
authorized  attorney  of  the  creditor.'  But  the  attorney  cannot, 
ordinarily,  delegate  his  authority  to  another  without  his  client's 
consent ;  *  nor  can  he  accept  a  payment  of  less  than  the  amount 


Kentucky. — Ely  v.  Harvey,  6  Bush 
620. 

Maine. — Ducett  v.  Cunningliam,  30 
Me.  386:  White  v.  Johnson,  67  ile. 
287. 

Michignn. — Duquette  v.  Richar, 
]02  Mich.  483,  60  N.  W.  974. 

Missouri. — Carroll  County  r.  Cheat- 
ham, 48  Mo.  385. 

Nebraska. — Gordon  v.  Omaha,  77 
Neb.  556,  110  N.  W.  313. 

New  York. — Hawivins  /".  Avery,  32 
Barb.  551 ;  Fullerton  r.  National  Bur- 
glar &  Theft  Ins.  Co.,  63  How.  Pr.  5, 
10  Abb.  N.  C.364;  Kirchner  i:  Schmid, 
7  Misc.  455,  25  N.  Y.  S.  85 ;  Conner  v. 
Watson,   29    Civ.   Pro.    153,   27    Misc. 

444,  59  N.  Y.  S.  213. 

O/iio.— Nolte  r.  Hulbort,  37  Ohio  St. 

445,  affirming  5  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint) 
485,  6  Am.  L.  Ree.  247,  7  Oliio  Dec. 
(Reprint)   398,  2  Cine.  L.  Bui.  294. 

PennHijlvania. — See  Bartoiett  r. 
Aehey,  38  Pac  St.  273. 

Smith  Carolina. — Coniinissioncrs  of 
I'lililie  .Accounts  r.  Rose.  1  Dcsaiis 
4t;i  ;  'I  nasui-.Ts  r.  Mcllowrll,  I  Hill 
L.   1H4,  2(i  Am.   !)<•(•.    Kid. 

Vir;iinin. —  Hudson  c.  Johnson,  1 
Wash.  10. 


1  Planters'  Bank  v.  Massey,  2  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)   360. 

2  See  infra,  %  276. 

3  See  supra,  §  276. 

4  Carpenter  v.  Coin.  19  N.  H.  479. 

5  Mourain  r.  Beauvais,  10  La.  477; 
New  Orleans  v.  Hennen,  18  La.  428; 
Hiller  v.  Ivy.  37  IVliss.  431. 

6  Atty.-Gen.  r.  North-America  L. 
Ins.  Co.,  93  N.  Y.  387. 

7  Erwin  r.  Blake,  8  Pet.  18,  8  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  852;  McTniffe  v.  Wheelock, 
1  Gray  (Mass.)  600;  Brown  v.  Mead, 
68  Vt.  215,  34  Atl.  950. 

i  Attorneij's  Wife  Has  No  Author- 
ity to  Receive  Payment. — In  Day  r. 
Boyd,  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  458,  it  ap- 
peared tliat,  during  tlie  absence  of  an 
attorney  from  home,  iiis  wife  received 
and  opened  a  letter  addressed  to  him, 
containing  a  draft  payable  to  his  order 
for  collection.  Tlie  drawee  paid  the 
draft  to  the  wife  on  her  presenting  it. 
It  did  not  appear  tliat  the  wife  iiad 
any  general  or  sj)ecial  authority  to 
act  for  licr  liusband  in  professional 
matters,  hut  tlie  attorney  liad  placed 
sonic  individual  claims  for  coUection 
in  tlie  hands  of  the  defendant  and  in- 
structed iiim  to  pay  over  any  moneys 


§  205] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


;g3 


diie,^  or  payment  otherwise  than  in  money/"  or  release/^  or  com- 
promise the  claim ;  ^^  and  the  debtor  is  bound  to  take  notice  of  the 
extent  of  the  attorney's  authority.^^  Where  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  has  ceased/*  the  authority  of  the  attorney  to  receive 
money  for  his  former  client  also  ceases ;  ^*  so,  payment  to  an  attor- 
ney with  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  another  has  been  substituted 
in  his  stead,  will  not  bind  the  client. ^^  The  authority  of  an  attorney 
to  receive  payment  for  his  client  may  be  revoked,^'  but  such  revo- 
cation will  not  affect  one  who  has  no  knowledge,  or  reason  to  know 
of  it.^« 

§  205.  On  Claims  Held  for  Collection.  — An  attorney  to 
whom  a  claim  has  been  given  for  collection  is  thereby  duly  au- 
thorized to  receive  the  amount  due  thereon  from  the  debtor,^^ 


tliat  sliould  come  to  his  hands  for  said 
attorney  to  liis  wife.  The  court  held 
that  the  wife  had  no  authority  to  re- 
ceive payment  of  the  draft,  and  that 
the  drawee  was  therefore  not  dis- 
charged by  virtue  of  the  payment  to 
her. 

See  mf7-a,  §  210. 

9  See  infra,  §  220. 

10  See  infra,  §  219. 

11  See  infra,  §  219  et  seq. 

12  See  infra,  §  215. 

13  Cram  r.  Sickel,  51  Neb.  828.  71 
N.  W.  724,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  478. 

14  See  supra,  §§  137-142. 

15  Gordon  r.  Hennings,  89  Neb.  252, 
131  N.  W.  228;  Willis  r.  Gorrell,  102 
Va.  746,  47  S.  E.  826. 

Where  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  is  changed  to  that  of  trustee 
and  cestui  que  trust,  the  trustee's 
power  to  receive  payment  is  to  be  de- 
termined from  the  agreement  or  ap- 
pointment creating  the  trust  relation, 
and  not  from  the  general  rule  creating 
the  relation  of  attorney  and  client. 
Scott  r.  State,  2  Md.  284.  See  also 
Hinkle   r.   Wanzer,   17   How.   353,   15 


U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  173;  Farmers'  Bank  c. 
Mackall,  3  Gill  (Md.)  447;  Kirchner 
r.  Schmid,  7  Misc.  455,  25  N.  Y.  S. 
85. 

16  In  re  Bleakley,  5  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
311;  Weist  c.  Lee,  3  Yeates   (Pa.)  47. 

i7Weist  r.  Lee,  3  Yeates  (Pa.)  47. 
See  also  Swartz  v.  Earls,  53  111.  237. 

In  Parker  v.  Downing,  13  Mass.  465, 
it  appeared  that  an  officer,  who  liad 
collected  money  upon  an  execution, 
paid  it  to  the  creditor's  attorney  of 
record  in  the  action,  whose  power  had 
been  revoked  before  the  execution  was 
delivered,  and  it  Avas  held  to  be  no 
discharge  of  tlic  officer. 

18  Ruckman  r.  Alwood,  44  111.  183; 
Cameron  r.  Stratton,  14  111.  App.  270; 
Gordon  v.  Omaha,  77  Neb.  556,  110  N. 
W.  313;  Yoakum  r.  Tilden,  3  W.  Va. 
167,  100  Am.  Dec.  738. 

19  United  States. — Erwin  r.  Blake,  8 
Pet.  18,  8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  852;  Chou- 
teau r.  U.  S.,  95  U.  S.  61,  24  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  371:  National  Bank  of  the 
Republic  r.  Old  Town  Bank,  112  Fed. 
726,  50  C.  C.  A.  443 ;  Lesher  v.  Radel, 
170   Fed.  723. 


364 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§   205 


and  as  incident  thereto,  power  to  indorse  a  draft  given  in  pay- 
ment.^" So,  also,  the  fact  that  an  attorney  has  possession  of  the 
evidence  of  indebtedness  creates  a  presumption  of  authority  in 
him  to  receive  payment  thereon ;  ^  but  to  justify  payments  to  an 
attorney  whose  only  known  authority  is  the  possession  of  the 
evidence  of  indebtedness,  it  must  appear  that  it  was  in  his  pos- 


Arka7isas. — Miller  v.  Scott,  21  Ark. 
396;  Conway  County  v.  Little  Rock, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  39  Ark.  50. 

Indiana. — Xewman  v.  Kiser,  128 
Ind.  258,  26  N.  E.  1006. 

loiixt. — McCarver  v.  Xealey,  1  G. 
Greene    360. 

Kansas. — Dolan  v.  VanDomark,  35 
Kan.  304,  10  Pac.  848. 

Kentucly. — Ely  v.  Harvey,  6  Bnsli 
620. 

Louisiana. — New  Orleans  v.  Hennen, 
IS   La.  428. 

Maine. — Gray  v.  Wass,  1  Greenl. 
257;  Patten  v.  Fullerton,  27  Me.  58; 
Ducett  V.  Cunningham,  39  Me.  386. 

Massachusetts. — Heard  v.  Lodge,  20 
Pick.  53,  32  Am.  Dec.  197. 

Mississippi. — Hiller  v.  Ivy,  37  Miss. 
431. 

Missouri. — Carroll  County  v.  Cheat- 
ham, 48  Mo.  385;  Whelan  v.  Reilly,  61 
Mo.  565;  Rhineiiart  v.  New  Madrid 
Banking  Co.,  99  Mo.  App.  381,  73  S. 
W.  315. 

Nebraska. — Ward  r.  Heals,  14  Neb. 
114,  15  N.  W.  353. 

New  York. — Megary  v.  Funtis,  5 
Sandf.  376;  Conner  r.  Watson,  27 
Misc.  444,  29  Civ.  Pro.  153,  59  N.  Y.  S. 
213;  Kramer  r.  Grant,  60  Misc.  109, 
ill  X.  Y.  S.  709. 

North  Carolina. — Rogers  c.  Mc- 
Keiizie,  81  N.  C.  164. 

Ohio. — Bryans  v.  'Jaylor,  Wright 
245. 

Houth  Carolina. — Cone  v.  Brown,  15 


Ricli.  L.  262;  Cauthen  v.  Cauthen,  76 
S.  C.  226,  56  S.  E.  978. 

Virginia. — Hudson  v.  Johnson,  1 
Wash.  10;  Branch  v.  Burnley,  1  Call 
147;  Wilkinson  v.  Holloway,  7  Leigh 
277;  Johnson  v.  Gibbons,  27  Gratt. 
632. 

West  Virginia. — Ellis  v.  Heptinstall, 
8  \N.  Va.  388;  Wiley  v.  Mahood,  10 
W.  Va.  223;  Donahue  v.  Fackler,  21 
W.  Va.  124. 

20  National  Fire  Ins.  Co.  v.  Eastern 
Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  63  Neb.  698,  88  N. 
W.  863,  affirmed  on  rehearing  65  Neb. 
483,  91  N.  W.  482. 

1  England. — Owen  v.  Barrow,  1  B. 
&  P.  N.  R.  101. 

California. — In  re  Tyler,  71  Cal. 
353,  12  Pac.  289,  13  Pac.  169. 

Maine. — Patten  v.  Fullerton,  27  Me. 
58;  Ducett  v.  Cunningham,  39  Me. 
386;  White  r.  Johnson,  67  Me.  290. 

Maryland. — Forbes  v.  Perrie,  1  Har. 
&  J.  109. 

Missouri.— Whelan  r.  Reilly.  61  Mo. 
565. 

Nebraska. — Ward  r.  Beals,  14  Neb. 
114,  15  N.  W.  353. 

New  York. — Leet  V.  McMaster,  51 
J5arb.  236;  ^^"illiams  v.  Walker,  2 
Sandf.  Ch.  325;  Megary  v.  Funtis,  5 
Sandf.  376;  Smith  v.  Kidd,  68  N.  Y. 
130,  23  Am.  Rep.  157;  Crane  v. 
Gruenewald,  120  N.  Y.  274,  24  N.  E. 
456,  17  Am.  St.  Rep.  643;  Central 
Trust  Co.  c.  Folsom,  26  App.  Div.  40, 
49  N.  Y.  S.  670. 


§  205] 


SCOPE  0¥   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


365 


session  on  each  occasion  when  payments  were  madc.^  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  an  attorney  may  have  authority  to  collect  for  his  prin- 
cipal a  note  and  mortgage  without  having  the  same  in  his  posses- 
sion.^ It  is  also  clear  that  in  some  cases  the  mere  possession  of 
the  paper  evidence  of  an  indebtedness  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
warrant  pa^'ment  to  the  possessor.*     Thus  the  court  said  in  one 


0/iio. — Antioch  College  v.  Carroll, 
11  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  220,  25  Cine. 
L.  Bui.  289. 

South  Carolina. — Cone  r.  Brown,  15 
Rich.  L.  262. 

Texas. — Donley  v.  Cundiff,  35  Tex. 
741. 

Virginia. — Hudson  t\  Johnson,  1 
Wash.   10. 

2  Williams  r.  Walker,  2  Sandf.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)  325;  Smith  v.  Kidd,  68  N.  Y. 
130,  23  Am.  Rep.  157;  Antioch  Col- 
lege V.  Carroll,  11  Ohio  Dec.  (Re- 
print)   220,  25  Cine.  L.  Bui.  289. 

3  Orient  Ins.  Co.  v.  Hayes,  61  Neb. 
173,  85  N.  W.  57. 

*  Presumption  Arising  from  Posses- 
sion of  Bond  and  Mortgage. — In  Cen- 
tral Trust  Co.  V.  Folsom,  26  App.  Div. 
40,  49  N.  Y.  S.  670,  it  was  held  that 
an  attorney  had  no  implied  authority 
to  receive  payment  of  the  principal  of 
a  bond  or  mortgage  in  his  possession 
where  it  appeared  that  he  did  not  make 
the  investment  originally;  that  there 
had  been  an  assignment  of  the  bond 
and  mortgage  which  he  was  not  in 
possession  of,  and  that  his  possession 
of  the  bond  and  mortgage  was  ob- 
tained in  an  undisclosed  manner;  al- 
though it  further  appeared  that  he 
had  received,  by  authority  of  the  as- 
signee, one  payment  of  the  interest. 
The  court  said:  "The  rule  is,  that 
where  a  solicitor  who  makes  the  loan 
receives  the  interest  and  has  the  se- 
curities in  his  possession  at  the  time 


of  payment  of  the  principal,  that 
principal  being  due,  the  person  pay- 
ing the  money  may  rely  upon  the  ap- 
parent authority  of  the  attorney  or 
solicitor  to  receive  that  money.  The 
authority  is  not  to  be  inferred  only 
from  the  attorney  having  received  in- 
terest, nor  from  the  mere  possession 
of  the  security,  but  it  must  result 
from  the  whole  control  of  the  invest- 
ment, from  beginnmg  to  end,  by  the 
attorney  or  solicitor.  The  lender 
must  part  with  his  money  to  the  so- 
licitor for  investment  and  give  him 
absolute  control  of  the  whole  matter. 
The  rule  was  referred  to  in  Smith  v. 
Kidd,  68  N.  Y.  130,  but  the  payment 
was  held  to  be  ineffectual  there  be- 
cause the  attorney  did  not  have  the 
possession  of  the  securities,  although 
he  originally  made  the  loan  and  re- 
ceived the  interest.  In  Crane  v. 
Gruenewald,  120  N.  Y.  274  the  rule 
is  referred  to  both  in  the  opinion  of 
the  court  and  in  the  dissenting  opin- 
ion. It  is  referred  to  by  Parker,  J., 
as  follows:  'If  a  mortgagee  permits 
an  attorney  who  negotiates  a  loan  to 
retain  in  his  possession  the  bond  and 
mortgage  after  the  principal  is  due, 
and  the  mortgagor,  with  knowledge 
of  that  fact,  and  relying  upon  the  ap- 
parent authority  thus  afforded,  shall 
make  a  payment  to  him,  the  owner 
will  not  be  permitted  to  deny  that  the 
attorney  possessed  the  authority 
which  the  presence   of   the   securities 


366  SCOPE  OF  attorney's  authority.  [§  205 

case:  "We  should  long  hesitate  to  hold  that  a  maker  of  a  note  may 
safely  pay  it  to  one  who  has  stolen  it  from  the  payee,  and  who 
falsely  pretends  to  hold  it  for  collection,  in  the  absence  of  any 
other  evidence  of  anthorit}-  than  the  bare  possession.  Yet  this  is 
the  result  of  the  doctrine  as  claimed."  ^  So,  after  an  attorney 
who  has  in  his  hands  a  debt  for  collection  reports  the  same  as 
properly  secured,  and  both  debtor  and  creditor  thereafter  treat 
the  debt  so  secured  as  an  investment,  and  the  debtor  regularly,  for 
a  period  of  ten  years,  pa^'S  the  semiannual  interest  directly  to 
the  creditor,  the  debt  cannot  thereafter  be  regarded  as  in  the  hands 
of  the  attorney  for  collection,  although  he  still  retains  the  evi- 
dence of  it.®  The  fact  that  an  attorney  was  employed  by  one  pro- 
posing to  loan  money  on  bond  and  mortgage  to  draw  the  papers, 
and  that  the  money  was  advanced  upon  the  securities  through  the 
attorney,  is  no  proof  of  authority  upon  his  part  to  collect  the 
principal ;  '  nor  can  it  be  inferred  that  an  attorney  was  authorized 
to  receive  the  principal,  from  the  fact  that  he  had  authority  to 
collect  the  interest.^  The  right  to  compromise  a  claim  held  for 
collection  has  been  considered  heretofore.^ 

indicated   that   he   had:'   and   Potter,  business,  and  he  is  thus  given  a  credit 

J.,   refers   to   the   rule   as  beinj?  suffi-  with  the  payer." 

cient  evidence  of  authority  if  the  at-  5  Nolte  v.  Hulbert,  37  Ohio  St.  445, 

torney    who    negotiated    the    loan    is  affirming  5  Ohio  Dec.    (Reprint)   485, 

subsequently  intrusted  by  the  creditor  6  Am.  L.  Rec.  247,  7  Ohio  Dec.   (Re- 

with  the  possession   of  the  bond  and  print)    398.  2  Cine.  L.  Bui.  294. 

mortgage.     So  in  Doubleday  v.  Kress,  6  Willis  r.  Gorrell,  102  Va.  746,  47 

50  N.  Y.  410,  it  is  said  that  payment  of  S.  E.  82fi. 

the  principal   to  the  agent  who  took  7  Smitli   (;.   Kidd,  68  N.  Y.   130,  23 

the  security  or  negotiated  tlie  loan  for  Am.  Rep.   157. 

which  the  security  was  taken,  and  was  8  Smitli  v.   Kidd,   68   N.  Y.   130,  23 

thereafter  intrusted  by  the  owner  with  Am.   Rep.   157;    Central  Trust  Co.  v. 

its   possession,    is    sufficient,    and    the  Folaom,  26  App.  Div.  40,  49  N.  Y.  S. 

payment   is   valid;    and   Peckham,   J.,  670. 

states  that  the  reason  of  tlie  rule  that  9  See  the  preceding  section  and  the 

one  who  lias  made  the  loan  as  agent  cross-references  therein  given. 

and  taken  tiie  security    is  autliorized  Partial   pai/mrnts   may    be   received 

to    receive   payment   when    lie   retains  on  claims  licld  for  collection.     Pickett 

poHsession  of  the  security,  is  founded  r.  Bates,  3  La.  Ann.  627;   Wlielan   c. 

upon     human     experience,     that     the  Reilly,     61     Mo.     565;     Williams     V. 

payer  knows  that  the  agent  has  been  Walker,    2    Sandf.    Ch.    (N.   Y.)    325. 

trusted  by  the  payee  about  the  same  But  see  supra,  §  204. 


^§  200,  207]   SCOPE  OF  attorney's  authority. 


367 


§  206.  Right  to  Demand  Payment.  —  The  authority  of  an 
attorney  to  receive  payment  on  behalf  of  his  client  carries  with  it 
the  right  to  demand  payment ;  ^°  and,  in  the  absence  of  objection 
on  that  ground,  it  may  be  presumed  that  he  was  authorized  to 
make  such  demand."  A  demand  on  the  sheriff  by  the  attorney 
of  record,  to  pay  over  money  collected  by  him  on  a  specific  exe- 
cution, is,  in  law,  a  demand  by  the  plaintiff,^^  and  the  officer  is 
justified  in  making  the  payment  unless  expressly  directed  not  to 
do  so.^'  So,  a  demand  of  dower  may  be  signed  by  attorney.^* 
Without  authority  express  or  implied  a  demand  by  an  attorney 
would,  of  course,  be  ineffective.^^ 

§  207.  Extending  Time  of  Payment.  —  The  extension  of 
the  time  of  payment  is  not  within  the  ordinary  scope  of  the  duty 
of  an  attorney  at  law,  and,  unless  specially  authorized  by  the 
client,  is  not  binding  upon  him.^®  And  such  an  attempted  exten- 
sion of  time  will  not  discharge  a  surety.^'  Thus  he  cannot  extend 
the  time  for  the  payment  of  a  mortgage  debt  owned  by  the  client,^* 


lOSppiice  V.  Rntledge,  11  Ala.  557; 
Heard  r.  Lodge.  20  Pick.  (Mass.)  53, 
32  Am.  Dec.  197:  Pettis  v.  Kellogg,  7 
Cusli.  (Mass.)  456;  Cady  v.  Fair 
Plain  Literary  Assoc,  135  Mich.  295, 
97  N.  W.  680,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  725. 

Demand  of  Deposit. — The  relation 
of  attorney  and  client  not  having  ter- 
minated, the  former  may  rightfully 
demand  a  county  order  deposited  by 
him  for  the  client  as  security  for  the 
sureties  on  an  attachment  bond. 
Champion  Iron  Fence  Co.  v.  Wernsing, 
19  111.  App.  42. 

"  Elwcll  V.  Prescott.  38  Wis.  274. 

12  Spence  r.  Rutledge,   11  Ala.  557. 

13  Williams  v.  State,  65  Ark.  159,  40 
S.  W.  186;  Butler  v.  Jones,  7  How. 
(Miss.)  587,  40  Am.  Dec.  82;  Hiller 
V.  Ivy,  37  Miss.  431. 

"Stevens  i:  Reed,  37  N.  H.  49. 
Where  an  attorney,  having  author- 
ity to  make  demand  for  dower  in  one 


parcel,  makes  demand  for  two,  the  de- 
mand is  not  vitiated  as  to  tlie  parcel 
witli  reference  to  which  he  was  au- 
thorized. McAllister  v.  Dexter,  etc., 
Pv.  Co.,  106  Me.  371.  21  Ann.  Cas.  486, 
76  Atl.  891,  29  L.R.A.(N.S.)    734. 

15  Dumartrait  v.  Kemper,  28  La. 
Ann.  620. 

iSLockhart  v.  Wyatt,  10  Ala.  231, 
44  Am.  Dec.  481 ;  Nolan  (;.  Jackson,  16 
111.  272;  Roberts  i\  Smith,  3  La.  Ann. 
305 ;  Mason  r.  Edward  Tliompson  Co., 
94  Minn.  472,  103  N.  W.  507;  Hall  v. 
Presnell,  157  N.  C.  290,  Ann.  Cas. 
1913B  1293,  72  S.  E.  985,  39  L.R.A. 
(K.S.)  62;  Pendexter  v.  Vernon,  9 
Humpli.  (Tenn.)  84.  And  see  Var- 
num  v.  Bellamy,  4  McLean  87,  28  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  16,886. 

17  Hall  r.  Presnell,  157  N.  C.  290, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913B  1293,  72  S.  E.  985, 
39  L.R.A.  (N.S.)   62. 

18  Haselton  v.  Florentine  Marble 
Co.,  94  Fed.  701. 


368 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTIIORITY. 


[§  208 


nor  can  he  receive  part  of  the  debt,  and  postpone  payment  of  the 
residue/^  nor  can  he  grant  a  mortgagor  an  extension  of  the  time 
for  redemption  in  consideration  of  his  placing  improvements  upon 
the  property.^"  So,  where  a  judgment  in  ejectment  is  entered  by 
agreement,  to  be  released  on  payment  of  a  certain  sum  on  or  be- 
fore a  certain  day,  the  plaintiff's  attorney  cannot,  without  ex- 
press authority,  bind  him  by  an  agreement  to  extend  the  time.^ 
In  some  jurisdictions,  however,  the  courts  have  recognized  an 
implied  authority  on  the  part  of  attorneys  to  extend  the  time  of 
payment  as  to  claims  placed  with  them  for  collection.^  One  deal- 
ing with  an  attorney  employed  solely  to  collect  a  debt  must  take 
notice  of  such  attorney's  lack  of  authority  to  grant  extensions  of 
time  to  the  debtor.^ 

§  208.  Receipts  of  Money  Outside  Scope  of  Employment. 
—  When  the  authority  of  an  attorney,  not  of  record,  to  receive 
payment  of  a  debt,  is  disputed,  proof  thereof  is  required  as  in  other 
cases  of  agency,*  as  it  is  well  settled  that  an  attorney  has  no 
authority  to  receive  money  owing  to  his  client  in  a  matter  outside 
of  the  scope  of  his  employment ;  *  but  the  debtor  will  not  be  preju- 


19  Heyman    v.    Beringer,    ]    Abb.    N. 
Cas.  (N.  Y.)   315. 

20Osborn  v.  Storms,  65  Ind.  321. 

1  Beatty  r.  Hamilton,  127  Pa.  St.  71, 
17  Atl.  755. 

2  Potter  V.  Parsons,  14  Ta.  286; 
Crawford  v.  Nolan,  70  la.  97,  30  N.  W. 
32.  See  also  Phillips  r.  Rounds,  33 
Me.  357,  wherein  it  was  held  that  an 
attorney,  appointed  to  act  for  a  cred- 
itor at  the  disclosure  of  his  dolitor, 
who  had  given  a  relief  bond,  liad  au- 
thority to  extend  the  time  for  sucli 
delitor  to  make  the  disclosure,  although 
Hucii  extension  might  have  the  ofTcct 
to  release  a  surety  in  the  bond. 
The  decision  was  influenced  by  a  stat- 
ute autiiorizing  attorneys  to  com- 
j>romiHe  their  clients'  cases. 

3  Hall   V.   Presnell,    157    N.   C.   290, 


Ann.  Cas.  1913B  1293,  72  S.  E.  985,  39 
L.Pv.A.(N.S.)    62. 

4  Batesville  Bank  v.  Maxey,  76  Ark. 
472,  88  S.  W.  968 ;  Barr's  Succession, 
8  La.  Ann.  458. 

5  United  States. — Bauman  t'.  Es- 
challier,  184  Fed.  710,  107  C.  C.  A.  44. 

//?inot.s.— Schroeder  v.  Wolf,  127  111. 
App.  506,  aifirm.ed  227  111.  133,  81  N. 
E.  13. 

Louisiana. — Lambeth  r.  New  Or- 
leans, 6  La.  731. 

Massachusetts. — Hadlock  c.  Brooks, 
178  Mass.  425,  59  N.  E.  1009. 

Missouri. — Ashby  v.  Winston,  34 
]\ro.  311. 

Neic  York. — Kirchner  r.  Selmiid,  7 
:Misc.  455,  25  N.  Y.  S.  85. 

Orer/on. — Kelsay  v.  Taylor,  56  Ore. 
13,  107  Pac.  609. 


§    208]  SCOTK    OF    ATTOKNEy's    AUTIIOKITY,  3Gf> 

tlicially  affected  by  any  secret  arrangement  between  the  attorney 
and.  his  client,  by  which  the  apparent  anthority  of  the  attorney  to 
receive  payment  of  the  client's  claims  is  curtailed,  and  which  have 
not  been  disclosed  to  the  debtors.^  Thns  the  employment  of  an 
attorney  to  draw  papers  on  which  money  is  advanced,  is  no  proof 
of  authority  upon  his  part  to  collect  the  principal,  where  he  has 
not  been  entrusted  with  the  custody  of  the  securities^  So,  author- 
ity to  place  loans  and  to  collect  interest  does  not  authorize  the 
collection  of  the  principal,  in  the  absence  of  the  possession  of 
the  evidence  of  indebtedness.*  The  mere  employment  of  an  attor- 
ney to  foreclose  a  mortgage,  does  not  give  him  authority  to  receive 
from  the  sheriff  money  paid,  after  foreclosure,  to  redeem  the  prop- 
erty.^ Nor  does  the  employment  of  an  attorney  at  law  to  examine 
the  title  to  lands  on  wdiich  a  mortgage  loan  is  about  to  be  made, 
authorize  him  to  receive,  as  agent  of  the  proposed  lender,  his  em- 
ployer, money,  from  the  borrower,  to  be  used  in  satisfying  prior 
liens. ^°  So,  the  employment  of  an  attorney  to  defend  a  suit 
does  not  authorize  him  to  receive  from  the  sheriff  the  proceeds  of 
the  defendant's  property  sold  under  a  judgment  recovered  in  that 
suit.^^  Xor  does  employment  to  foreclose  a  mortgage  give  any 
right  to  receive  the  redemption  money  after  foreclosure.'^^  Where 
an  execution  defendant  placed  a  claim  in  the  hands  of  the  plain- 

Pennsylrania. — Kephart     r.     Zeek,  7  Smitli   r.  Kidd,   68  X.  Y.  130,  23 

]5]  Pa.  St.  423,  2.)  Atl.  106,  31  W.  N.  Am.  Rep.   157;    Bryant  f.   Hamlin,  3 

C.  89;   Bryant  r.  Hamlin,  3  Pa.  Dist.  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  385. 

Ct.    385;    Com.    r.    Commissioners,    1  8  Williams  v.  Walker,  2  Sandf.  Ch. 

Chest.  Co.  Rep.  349.  (N.  Y.)  325;  Smith  r.  Kidd,  68  X.  Y. 

Texas.— Qm\A\&  r.  McLean,  40  Tex.  130,  23  Am.  Rep.  157;   Central  Trust 

391.  Co.   V.   Folsom,   26   App.   Div.   40,   49 

estate  V.  Hawkins.  28  Mo.  366;  N.Y.  S.  670;  Antioch  College  r.  Car- 
Tito  r.  Seabury,  18  Misc.  283,  41  roll,  11  Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  220,  25 
X.   Y.   S.  1041;   Glass  r.  Davidson,   1  Cine.  L.  Bui.  289. 

Baxt.    (Tenn.)    47;  Planters'  Bank  i\  9  In  re  Grundysen,  53  Minn.  34G,  55 

Massey,   2  Heisk.    (Tenn.)    362.  X.  W.  557. 

Compare  Cameron  r.  Stratton,  14  111.  10  Josephthal  v.  Heyman,  2  Abb.  N. 

App.   270,  wherein    it  was   held   that  Cas.  (X.  Y.)  22. 

one  who  pays  the  amount  of  a  judg-  H  Germaine    r.    Mallerich,    31    La. 

ment  to  an  attorney  who  is  employed  Ann.  371. 

not  generally  but  specially  only,  pays  12  in  re  Grundysen,  53  Minn.  346,  55 

at  his  peril.  X.  W.  557. 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 24. 


370  SCOPE  OF  attorney's  AUTiioiai'v.     L§§   209,  210 

tiff's  attorne}',  with  instructions  to  collect  it  and  apply  it  to  the 
/?.  fa.  against  him,  and  the  attorney  collected  the  claim,  but  failed 
to  apply  it  as  directed,  the  plaintiffs  are  not  bound  to  recognize 
the  collection  as  a  payment  to  them.^^  An  attorney  employed  by 
an  administrator  to  obtain  an  order  of  sale  is  not,  by  virtue  of 
such  employment,  authorized  to  receive  the  purchase  price.^*  The 
attorney  of  a  guardian  ad  litem  has  no  greater  power  than  the 
guardian  himself,  and  hence,  where  the  guardian  was  not  legally 
authorized  to  receive  the  proceeds  of  a  settlement  of  his  ward's 
cause  of  action,  payment  to  the  attorney  does  not  constitute  satis- 
faction of  the  claim."  And  where  a  solicitor  to  a  complainant  in 
a  cause  is  appointed  a  trustee  to  manage  the  fund  in  controversy, 
and  he  receives  money  without  authority  as  such  trustee,  and 
Avastes  the  same,  the  payment  to  the  trustee  cannot  be  considered 
a  ]3ayment  to  the  complainant.^^  A  payment  made  to  an  attorney 
after  the  termination  of  the  professional  relation  will  not,  of 
course,  bind  the  former  client.'^'  But  the  unauthorized  receipt  of 
money  by  an  attorney  may  be  ratified  by  the  person  for  whom  he 
presumed  to  act,  and,  in  such  case,  it  will  be  binding.^® 

§  209.  Authority  to  Resort  to   Criminal  Proceedings.  — 

An  authority  to  institute  legal  proceedings  for  the  purpose  of 
collecting  a  debt,  must  be  construed  as  an  authority  to  commence 
civil  suits  only;  it  cannot  be  construed  as  authority  to  proceed 
criminally  against  the  delitor.^^ 

Delerjation  of  AutJwrify. 

§  210.   Generally. —  The  general  rule  is  that  an  attorney  at 
law,  by  virtue  of  his  ordinary  powers,  cannot  delegate  his  authori- 

13  Pcasp     I.    Dihblo,     57     Ga.     446;  As  to  when  the  relation  terminates 

Price  r.  Wliitc.  70  Ha.  381;   Bradford  generally,  see  supra,  §§  137-142. 

r.   AiiK.l.l.  33  Tex.  412.  18  Pease  r.  Dibble,  57  Ga.  446;  New- 

H  Nolan  ?;.  .Jackson.  Hi  111.  272.  man  r.  Riser,   128  Ind.  258,  26  N.  PJ. 

ISHeiter    v.   .Tolinc,    13.")    Ajip.    Div.  1000;  Me^NIahon  r.  Bardinger,  (Pa.)  4 

]3.  119  N.  Y.  S.  81!).  Atl.  371). 

16  Farmers'  Banl<  r.  Miickall.  3  (Jill  As     to    ratification     gemralhj,    see 
Old.  I    447.  infra,  S§  211-214. 

17  ii:i!lani    r.   (niiltir.    II.")    ]\\.   313,  19  Tliompson  r.  Beacon  Val.  Uiibber 
73  S.  W.  772,  24   Ky.   L.  Kcp.  2200.  Co..  5(J  Conn.  4i;3.  16  Atl.  554. 


I 


210] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


371 


ty  to  another,  so  as  to  confer  on  sucli  other  his  o-wm  rights,  duties, 
and  obligations;  nor  can  he,  without  his  client's  consent,  employ 
other  counsel  or  assistants  at  the  client's  expense,^''  even  though 


20  United  .S'*a<cs.— Wilkinson  r.  Til- 
den,  14  Fed.  778. 

Alabama. — Hitchcock  r.  ^McGehee,  7 
Port.  556;  Johnson  r.  Cunningham,  1 
Ala.  249;  King  i\  Pope,  28  Ala.  601. 

Arkansas. — Kellogg  v.  Norris,  10 
Ark.  18;  Danley  r.  Crawl,  28  Ark.  95. 

California. — Porter  r.  Elizalde,  125 
Cal.  204,  57  Pac.  899. 

Colorado. — Emblem  r.  Bicksler,  34 
Colo.  496,  83  Pac.  636;  McCarthy  v. 
Crump,  17  Colo.  App.  110,  67  Pac. 
343;  Lathrop  v.  Halhtt,  20  Colo.  App. 
207,  77  Pac.  1095. 

Florida. — Hendry  r.  Benlisa,  37  Fla. 
609.  20  So.  800,  34  L.R.A.  283. 

Illinois. — Cornelius  r.  Wash,  Breese 
98,  12  Am.  Dec.  145;  Morgan  v.  Rob- 
erts, 38  111.  85;  Chicago,  etc..  Traction 
Co.  v.  Flaherty,  222  HI.  67,  78  N.  E. 
29;  Continental  Adjustment  Co.  /;. 
Hoffman,  123  111.  App.  69. 

Indiana. — Clegg  r.  Baumberger,  110 
Jnd.  536,  9  N.  E.  700. 

Joica. — Smalley  i'.  Greene,  52  la. 
24],  3  X.  W.  78,  35  Am.  Rep.  267; 
Antrobus  r.  Sherman,  65  la.  230,  21 
N.  W.  579,  54  Am.  Rep.  7;  Gillilland 
r.  ]?rantner.  145  la.  275,  121  X.  W. 
1047. 

Kansas. — Cummins  v.  Heald,  24 
Kan.  600,  36  Am.  Rep.  264. 

Michigan. — Eggleston  r.  Boardman, 
37  Mich.  14;  Engle  c.  Chipman,  51 
Mich.  524,  16  X.  W.  886. 

Minnesota. — Brewer  r.  Hartman, 
116  Minn.  512.  1.34  X.  W.  113. 

Mississippi. — Dickson  r.  Wriglit.  52 
Miss.  588,  24  Am.  Rep.  677. 

Missouri. — Callahan  v.  Shotwell,  60 
]Mo.  398;    Cross  ;;.  Atchison,  T.,  etc., 


R.  Co.,  141  Mo.  132.  42  S.  W.  (i75; 
McDonougli  V.  Daly,  3  Mo.  App.  60(); 
Kingsbury  r.  Joseph,  94  Mo.  App.  298, 
68  S.  \\.  93. 

Xebraska. — McDowell  v.  Gregory, 
14  Neb.  33,  14  N.  W.  899;  Hilton  v. 
Crooker,  30  Xeb.  707,  47  X.  W.  3. 
Compare  Dillon  /•.  Watson,  3  Xeb. 
(unofficial)  Rep.  530,  92  N.  W.  156 
(  set  out  below ) . 

Nen^  Mexico. — Johnston  i;.  Baca,  13 
X.  M.  338,  85  Pac.  237. 

Xeir  :J'orA-.— :\Iatter  of  Bleaklcy,  5 
Paige  311;  Buckley  r.  Buckley,  64 
Hun  632  mem.,  18  X.  Y.  S.  607; 
Laclier  r.  Gordon,  127  App.  Div.  140, 
m  X.  Y.  S.  283:  :Meaney  v.  Rosen- 
berg, 32  Misc.  96,  65  X.  Y.  S.  497, 
revcrsinfi  28  Misc.  520,  59  X^.  y.  S. 
.582. 

North  Dakota.— Fdehold  r.  llartzell, 
23  N.  D.  264,  136  N.  W.  247. 

Ohio. — Knight  v.  Buser,  6  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)    772,  8  Am.  L.  Rec.  28. 

7'earas.— Ratcliff  r.  Baird,  14  Tex. 
43;  Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  r.  Wright, 
47  Tex.  Civ.  App.  458,  107  S.  W.  77. 

Vermont. — Briggs  r.  Georgia,  10  Vt. 
68. 

West  Virginia. — Ellis  r.  Heptin- 
stall,  8  W.  Va.  388;  Crotty  t:  Eagle, 
35  W^  Va.  143,  13  S.  E.  59. 

Appearance  in  Xame  of  Another  A  t- 
torney. — Where  an  attorney  who  \\as 
also  a  defendant,  and  authorized  to 
appear  for  his  codefendant,  had  the 
appearance  entered  in  the  name  of 
anotlier  attorney,  there  was  no  dele- 
gation of  discretion  or  authority,  and 
having  conducted  tlie  case  himself, 
that  he  did  so  in  the  name  of  another 


372 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTIIOIUTY. 


[§   210 


he,  himself,  becomes  disqualified  to  act;  ^  nor  can  he  transfer  to 
another  attorney  his  own  executory  agreement  to  render  profes- 
sional services.^  Thus,  an  attorney  cannot  delegate  his  authority 
to  submit  his  client's  ease  to  arbitration,^  or  to  collect  a  claim,* 
or  to  receive  for  his  client  the  amount  due  on  a  judgment.^  The 
rule  rests  not  only  on  the  principle  of  delegatus  noii  delegare 
potest,  but  also  on  the  presumption  that  the  client,  in  selecting  a 


attorney  is  a  difference  of  form  and 
not  of  substance.  Swartz  v.  IMorgan, 
163  Pa.  St.  195,  29  Atl.  974,  97.5,  43 
Am.  St.   Rep.   786. 

Compare  Reich  v.  Cochran,  102  X. 
Y.  S.  827,  affirmed  139  App.  Div.  931, 
]24  X.  Y.  S.  1127,  105  App.  Div.  o42, 
94  X.  Y.  S.  404,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  one  attorney  lias  authority  to 
empower  another  to  appear  for  the 
client. 

In  Dillon  v.  Watson,  3  Neb.  (unoffi- 
cial) Rep.  530,  92  X.  W.  150,  it  was 
held  that  an  attorney,  retained  to  con- 
duct a  case  pending  in  another  county, 
may  properly  employ  local  counsel  to 
attend  to  formal  matters. 

1  An  attorney  at  laic,  elected  a  judge, 
cannot  substitute  another  to  perform 
his  subsisting  professional  contracts. 
Ratcliff  V.  Baird,  14  Tex.  43. 

2, Johnston  r.  Baca,  13  X.  M.  338,  85 
Pac.  237. 

A  contract  wliereby  tlie  owner  of 
land  gives  a  lawyer  tlie  option  of 
buying  it  at  a  certain  price,  in  con- 
sideration of  the  latter  taking  all 
legal  steps  to  perfect  the  title,  cannot 
be  enforced  by  the  assignee  of  the 
lawyer,  since  an  executory  contract 
for  personal  services  requiring  skill  is 
not  assignable.  Sloiin  /•.  Williams,  138 
III.  13,  27  X.  K.  531,  12  L.R.A.  49G. 

\\  licrr  a  contract  for  professional 
services  is  m.uU:  by  an  attorney,  and 
land   is  conveyed  to   him   as  a   condi- 


tional fee  for  the  prosecution  of  a  cer- 
tain action  on  behalf  of  the  client,  the 
contract  is  personal  and  confidential, 
and  cannot  be  assigned  to  another 
without  the  assent  of  the  client;  and, 
in  case  of  assignment  without  such  as- 
sent, tlie  client  may  declare  the  con- 
tract at  an  end,  and  recover  the  lands 
conveyed  as  a  conditional  fee;  the 
money  expended  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  action,  however,  to  be  refunded. 
Hilton  r.  L'rooker,  30  Xeb.  707,  47  N. 
W.  3. 

3  Wright  r.  Evans,  53  Ala.  103. 

*  Kellogg  r.  Xorris,  10  Ark.  18; 
Danley  v.  Crawl,  28  Ark.  95;  Cum- 
mins V.  Heald,  24  Kan.  600,  36  Am. 
Rep.  264;  Dickson  v.  Wright,  52  Miss. 
585,  24  Am.  Rep.  677. 

Compare  McEwen  ('.  Mazyck,  3 
Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  210,  wherein  it  was 
held  that  an  attorney  may  employ  an 
agent  to  receive  money  for  him  in 
his  professional  business. 

In  Planters'  Bank  r.  Massey,  2 
Ileisk.  (Tenn.)  360,  it  was  held  that 
an  attorney,  in  wliose  hands  a  debt 
has  been  placed  for  collection,  may 
place  such  claim  in  tlie  hands  of  otiier 
attorneys  for  the  purjiose  of  bringing 
suit,  wliero  to  attend  personally  to  the 
case  is  impracticable  or  inconvenient 
for  the  original  attorney. 

5  Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v.  Wright, 
47  Tex.  Civ.  App.  458,  107  S.  W.  77. 


§   210] 


SCOIT.    Olf    ATT()i;.\KY  S   AUTHORITY. 


373 


particular  person,  desired  his  jiei'sonal  services.^  But  an  attorney 
retained  to  conduct  a  case  which  is  pending  in  another  county 
may  properly  employ  local  counsel  to  attend  to  necessary  formal 
matters,  such  as  procuring-  orders,  attending  calls  of  the  docket, 
and  the  like,  and  charge  the  fees  paid  such  counsel  as  expenses, 
where  it  appears  that  the  fees  paid  were  less,  or  at  least  not  more, 
than  the  expense  which  would  have  been  incurred  had  he  gone  in 
person.'''  And  he  may  delegate  to  clerks  and  employees  such 
duties  as  do  not  involve  peculiar  skill  or  discretion.*  The  client 
may,  of  course,  consent  to  the  employment  of  associate  counsel,* 
and  such  consent  may  he  inferred  from  the  circumstances ;  ^^  but 
it  cannot  be  established  by  the  attorney's  declarations  as  against 


6  Smalley  v.  Greene,  52  la.  241,  3  N. 
W.  78,  35  Am.  Rep.  267;  Dickson  v. 
Wright,  52  Miss.  585,  24  Am.  Rep.  677. 

7  Dillon  i:  Watson,  (Neb.)  92  N.  W. 
150. 

8  No  clerk  of  an  attorney  at  law 
may  discontinue  an  action  without  the 
consent  of  his  principal.  Irvine  r. 
Spring,  7  Robt.  (N.  Y.)  293,  35  How. 
Pr.  479. 

An  affidavit  in  support  of  a  motion 
to  punish  a  judgment  debtor  for  con- 
tempt cannot  be  made  by  the  manag- 
ing clerk  of  the  attorney  of  the  judg- 
ment creditor,  unless  expressly  au- 
thorized to  do  so,  and  reason  is 
shown  why  it  is  not  made  by  the 
judgment  creditor  or  his  attorney. 
Eyre  v.  Stubbert,  71  Misc.  147,  128 
N.  Y.  S.  4. 

An  attorney's  clerk,  however  exten- 
sive his  general  powers  may  be,  can- 
not discontinue  an  action  without  the 
consent  of  his  principal.  Irvine  v. 
Spring,  7  Robt.  (N.  Y.)  293.  Nor 
can  such  a  clerk  bind  the  attorney's 
client  by  a  discharge,  Avithout  satis- 
faction, of  a  debt  due  the  client. 
Carter  r.  Talcott,  10  Vt.  471. 

3  Dentzel    V.    City    &    Suburban    R. 


Co.,  90  Md.  434,  45  Atl.  201;  Smith  v. 
Lipscomb,  13  Tex.  532.  See  also  Gil- 
lilland  v.  Brantner,  145  la.  275,  121  N. 
W.  1047. 

Ii€vocntion  of  Employment. — Where 
a  power  of  attorney  authorizes  the 
person  appointed  to  appoint  an  at- 
torney under  him,  and  to  revoke  sucli 
appointment  at  his  pleasure,  the 
death  of  the  principal  attorney  neces- 
sarily revokes  tlie  power  of  the  sub- 
stitute. Watt  c.  Watt,  2  Barb.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)    371. 

10  Planters'  Bank  V.  Massey,  2 
Heisk.  (Tenn.)  360;  Ellis  V.  Heptin- 
stall,  8  W.  Va.  388. 

In  Dentzel  v.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 
Md.  434,  45  Atl.  201,  the  court  said 
tliat  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when 
a  party  employs  an  attorney  to  en- 
force a  claim  or  procure  a  settlement, 
and  knows  that  he  will  employ  an- 
other attorney  to  conduct  the  trans- 
action with  the  other  party,  lie  can- 
not be  heard  to  question  the  right  of 
the  third  party  to  make  tlie  settlement 
with  liim — provided,  of  course,  it  is 
within  the  scope  of  the  employment 
of  tlie  original  attorney. 


SCOPE    OF   ATTOKXEY  S   AUTIIOIMTY. 


[§     211 


evidence  to  the  contrary,  ^^  nor  does  a  contract  for  the  employ- 
ment of  an  attorney,  which  reserves  to  the  client  the  right  to  em- 
ploy assistant  counsel,  authorize  the  attorney  to  employ  such 
assistant  at  the  expense  of  the  client. ^'^  So,  also,  an  attorney  may, 
at  his  own  expense,  employ  associate  counsel, ^^  jiroviding,  of 
course,  that  such  employment  is  not  objected  to,  or  prohibited  by 
his  client.  It  has  also  been  held  that  the  client  may  be  charged 
with  the  reasonable  value  of  the  services  performed,  including 
those  rendered  by  an  associate  employed  by  the  original  attorney.^^ 
Where  an  attorney  has  the  management  of  a  suit,  and,  in  this 
res])ect,  is  both  agent  and  attorney  for  a  party,  he  may  employ 
assistant  counsel  at  the  charge  of  his  client.^*  The  unauthorized 
retainer  of  associate  counsel  may  be  ratified  by  the  client  so  as  to 
be  binding  on  him,^^  and  such  ratification  may  be  inferred  from 
the  acceptance  of  his  services  without  objection." 

Ratification  of  UnaiitJioyized  Acts. 

§  211.  Generally.  —  The  acts  of  an  attorney  in  excess  of  his 
authority  may  be  ratified  by  the  client,^^  and  thereupon  they  bc- 


11  Porter  i'.  Elizalde,  125  Cal.  204, 
57  Pac.  899.  See  also  In  re  Bork- 
strom,  63  App.  Div.  7,  71  N.  Y.  S. 
4)1,  affirmed  168  N.  Y.  639,  61  N.  E. 
11-27. 

12(!illilland  r.  Brantner,  145  la. 
275,  121  X.  \V.  1047. 

13  Villas  r.  Buiidy,  106  Wis.  168,  81 
X.  W.  812. 

14  Kingsbury  r.  Joseph,  94  Mo.  App. 
298,  68  S.  \V.  93 ;  Dillon  v.  Watson,  3 
Xeb.  (ininni(-ial)  Rep.  530,  92  N.  W. 
156.     And  see  infra,  §§  407-409. 

15  Fowler  V.  Iowa  ]>and  Co.,  IS  S.  D. 
131,  99  X.  W.  1095;  Brig^s  r.  Geor- 
gia, 10  Vt.  68. 

16  D.-ntze!  /•.  City,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  90 
Md.  434,  45  At!.  201  ;  Clarke  r.  Cray, 
1  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  128.  And  as  to 
ratilication  generally,  see  infra, 
8§  211-214. 


Compare  O'Conner  t\  Arnold,  53 
Ind.  203. 

17Fenno  r.  English,  22  Ark.  170: 
Porter  r.  Elizalde.  125  Cal.  204,  57 
Pac.  899;  INIcDonough  r.  Daly,  3  Mo. 
App.  606;  Rogers  r.  McKenzie,  81  X. 
C.  164;  Smith  r.  Lipscomb,  13  Tex. 
532;  Jones  r.  Jones,  72  Wasli.  517, 
130  Pac.  1125. 

Compare  Gillilland  v.  Brantner,  145 
la.  275,  121  N.  W.  1047,  wherein  it 
was  said  that  though  he  knew  that  as- 
sistant counsel  rendered  certain  ser- 
vices, the  client  was  not  liable  there- 
for, because  he  had  a  right  to  pre- 
sume that  such  services  were  per- 
formed at  the  attorney's  expense.  And 
see  to  the  same  effect,  McCarthy  r. 
Crump,  17  Colo.  App.  110,  67  Pac. 
343. 

18  Hughes  County  r.  Ward,  81  Fed. 
314;    I.isbon  v.  Ilolton,  51  N.  H.  209. 


§  211] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTOR>rEY  S  ALTTIK  >KIT  V. 


375 


come  as  effective  as  if  thej  were  originally  authorized. ^^  Ratiti- 
cation  may  be  either  express  or  implied,^"  depending  on  the  facts 
presented  by  the  particular  case.^     So,  a  client  may  ratify  a  part 


19  United  States. — Erwin  r.  Blake,  8 
Pet.  24,  8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  85.3;  Kobb  v. 
Roelker,  66  Fed.  23;  Hughes  County 
v.  Ward,  81  Fed.  314. 

Alabama. — Kirk  r.  Glover,  5  Stew. 
&  P.  340. 

Arkansas. — Whiting  v.  Beebe,  12 
Ark.  421. 

Colorado. — Roberts  r.  Denver,  etc., 
R.  Co.,  8  Colo.  App.  504,  46  Pac.  880. 

Delaxrarc. — Wood  v.  Bangs,  2  Pen. 
435,  48  Atl.  189. 

District  of  Columhia. — Hazleton  v. 
Le  Due,  10  App.  Cas.  379. 

Indiana. — Palmer  v.  Miller.  19  Ind. 
App.  624,  49  N.  E.  975. 

loica. — Ryan  v.  Doyle,  31  Iowa  53. 

Kansas. — Dresser  v.  Wood,  15  Kan. 
344. 

Louisiana. — Camors  c.  Loscli.  Mann. 
Unrep.  Cas.  95. 

Maine. — Vose  v.  Treat,  58  Me.  378. 

Massachusetts. — Fisher  v.  Willard, 
13  Mass.  379;  Peru  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Whipple  File,  etc.,  Co.,  109  Mass.  464. 

Michigan. — Lindner  v.  Hine,  84 
Mich.  511,  48  N.  W.  43. 

Missouri. — State  v.  Harrington,  100 
Mo.  170,  13  S.  W.  398;  Hays  r.  Mer- 
kle,  70  Mo.  App.  509 ;  Beagles  r.  Rob- 
ertson, 135  Mo.  App.  306,  115  S.  W. 
1042. 

Nehrasl-a. — Fenimore  f.  White,  78 
Neb.  520,  111  N.  W.  204. 

Neir  York. — Patterson  v.  McGovern, 
44  App.  Div.  310,  60  N.  Y.  S.  714; 
Chautauqua  County  Bank  r.  Risley,  4 
Den.  480;  Lockner  r.  Holland,  81  N. 
Y.  S.  730. 

North  Carolina. — Moye  v.  Cogdell, 
69  N.  C.  93;  Christian  v.  Yarborough, 
124  N.  C.  72.  32  S.  E.  383. 


North  Dakota. — Bacon  v.  Mitchell, 
14  N.  D.  454,  106  IST.  W.  129,  4  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  244;  Van  Gordon  v.  Goldamer, 
16  N.  D.  323,  113  N.  W.  609. 

0/ao.— .Julier  v.  Julier,  62  Ohio  St. 
90,  56  N.  E.  661,  78  Am.  St.  Rep.  697. 

Pennsylvania. — Himes  v.  Herr,  3  Pa. 
Super.  Ct.  124. 

Tennessee. — Smith  v.  Quarles,  46  S. 
W.  1035. 

Texas. — Cook  v.  Greenberg,  34  S. 
W.  689. 

Virginia. — Herrell  v.  Prince  Wil- 
liam County,  113  Va.  594,  75  S.  E.  87. 

Washington. — Denney  v.  Parker,  10 
Wash.  218,  38  Pac.  1018;  Lambert  v. 
Gillette,  24  Wash.  726,  64  Pac.  784; 
Collins  V.  Fidelity  Trust  Co.,  33  Wash. 
136,  73  Pac.  1121;  State  v.  Spokane, 
44  Wash.  688,  87  Pac.  944. 

20  Gardner  r.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
102  Ala.  635,  15  So.  271,  48  Am.  St. 
Rep.  84;  Newman  v.  Kiser,  128  Ind. 
258,  26  N.  E.  1006. 

1  California. — Ephraim  i'.  Pacific 
Bank,  149  Cal.  222,  86  Pac.  507. 

Illinois. — Cameron  v.  Stratton,  14 
111.  App.  270. 

Louisiana. — Taylor  v.  Sutton,  6  La. 
Ann.  709;  Mason  v.  Stewart,  6  La. 
Ann.  736;  Brooks  v.  Poirier,  10  La. 
Ann.  512. 

Maine. — Narraguagus  Land  Pro- 
prietors V.  Wentworth,  36  Me.  339. 

Michigan. — Gemberling  i\  Spauld- 
ing,  104  Mich.  217,  62  N.  W.  342. 

New  YorA-.— Bradt  r.  Scott,  63  Hun 
632  mem.,  18  N.  Y.  S.  507. 

Wisconsin. — Hooker  v.  Brandon,  75 
Wis.  8,  43  N.  W.  741. 


376 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§  211 


only  of  the  unauthorized  acts  of  his  attorney;  thus  he  may  ratify 
the  act  of  his  attorney  by  accepting  a  bond  in  payment  of  a  judg- 
ment recovered  by  him,  but  he  does  not  thereby  necessarily  ratify 
a  subsequent  unauthorized  transfer  of  the  bond  by  the  attorney 
to  his  own  use.^  And  where  an  attorney  received  a  note  from 
the  execution  debtor  under  an  agi-eement  that  the  debtor  might 
run  the  execution  against  his  codefendant,  the  client  may  ratify 
the  reception  of  the  note,  and  repudiate  the  agreement  as  to  the 
running  of  the  execution.^  The  client  may  ratify  every  act  which 
he  could  have  originally  authorized  his  attorney  to  perform ;  thus 
as  to  the  unauthorized  institution  of  legal  proceedings,*  acceptance 
of  service,^  appearance,®  employment  of  associate  counsel,'  agree- 
ments with  third  persons,*  and  the  assigTiment  of  a  judgment,^  or 
mortgage.'^"  So,  also,  the  client  may  ratify  an  unauthorized  com- 
promise,^^ release,^^  satisfaction  of  a  judgment,^^  the  acceptance 
of  payment  of  his  client's  demands  otherwise  than  in  money," 


2  Kirk  v.  Glover,  5  Stew.  &  P.  (Ala.) 
340. 

3  Baldwin  v.  Morrill,  8  Humph. 
(Tenn.)   132. 

4  Hughes  County  V.  Ward,  81  Fed. 
314;  Roberts  v.  Denver,  L.  &  G.  R.  Co., 
8  Colo.  App.  504,  46  Pac.  880;  Dresser 
r.  Wood,  15  Kan.  344;  Lisbon  v.  Hol- 
ton,  51  X.  H.  20!). 

5  Clark  r.  Morrison,  SO  Ga.  393,  6  S. 
E.  171;  Lorenz  ;■.  King,  38  Pa.  St.  93. 

e  Evan  v.  Doyle,  31  la.  53. 

7  Bradt  v.  Scott,  63  Hun  632  mem., 
18  X.  Y.  S.  507;  Rogers  v.  McKen- 
zie,  81  N.  C.  164. 

Compare  Lathrop  v.  Hallett,  20 
Colo.  App.  207,  77  Pac.  1095. 

SKpliraim  r.  Pacific  Bank,  149  Cal. 
222,  86  Pac.  507;  Travellers'  Ins.  Co. 
r.  Patten,  119  Ind.  416,  20  N.  E.  790. 

i)Marsliall  v.  Moore,  36  111.  321; 
Dunn  V.  Springmoicr,  7  Ohio  Dec. 
( ficprint)  330,  2  Cine.  L.  Bui.  127. 

10(  utls  r.  York  Mfg.  Co.,  18  Me. 
1110. 

11  WrtlMTli.e  /;.   Filch,    117   ill.  67,  7 


X.  E.  513;  Wakeman  i".  Jones,  1  Ind. 
517;  Camors  v.  Losch,  Man.  Unrep. 
Cas.  (La.)  95;  Semple  v.  Atkinson, 
64  Mo.  504 ;  Beagles  v.  Robertson,  135 
Mo.  App.  306,  115  S.  W.  1042;  Van 
Campen  v.  Bruns,  54  App.  Div.  86,  66 
X.  Y.  S.  344;  Collins  r.  Fidelity  Trust 
Co.,  33  Wash.  136,  73  Pac.  1121;  State 
V.  Spokane,  44  Wash.  688,  87  Pac.  944. 

12  Hodgins  V.  Heaney,  17  Minn.  45; 
Babcock  r.  United  R.  Co.,  158  Mo. 
App.  275,  138  S.  W.  53;  Tooker  v. 
Sloan,  30  X.  J.  Eq.  394;  Benedict  v. 
Smith,  10  Paige  (X.  Y.)  126;  Christ- 
ian V.  Yarborough,  124  N.  C.  72,  32  S. 
E.  383. 

13  11imes  r.  Herr,  3  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
124.  3!)  W.  X.  C.  568. 

^i  Maltama. — Kirk  r.  Glover,  5 
Stew.  &  P.  340. 

Colorado.  —  Compare  Black  v. 
Drake,  2  Colo.  330. 

Illinois. — ChapuKui  r.  Burt,  77  111. 
337. 

Louisiana. — Beau  r.  Drew,  15  La. 
Ann.  401, 


L>12] 


SCOPE    OF  ATTORXEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


377 


or  the  taking  of  less  than  the  full  amount  due  thereon. ^^  The 
burden  of  establishing  a  ratification  rests  with  the  party  Avho 
seeks  the  benefit  thereof,'^^  and  in  case  of  a  conflict  of  evidence  the 
question  is  one  for  the  jury." 

§  212.  Ratification  by  Adopting  or  Accepting  Benefits  of 
Attorney's  Acts.  —  So,  although  an  attorney  has  acted  for  an- 
other without  authority,  or  has  exceeded  his  authority,  his  acts 
will  be  considered  ratified  where  they  are  adopted  by  the  party 
in  ^7hose  interest  they  were  intended."  Ratification  of  an  at- 
torney's unauthorized  acts  may  also  be  inferred  from  the  ac- 
ceptance by  the  client  of  the  benefits  thereof  with  full  knowledge 
of  the  facts.^^     But   such   acceptance  must  be   inconsistent  with 


Maine. — Patten  v.  Fullerton,  27  Me. 
58. 

Massachusetts. — Swett  v.  South- 
worth,  125  Mass.  417. 

Minnesota. — Ruggles  v.  Swanwiek, 
6  Minn.  52G. 

Mississippi. — Bower  v.  Henshaw,  53 
Miss.  345. 

Tennessee. — Baldwin  v.  Merrill,  8 
Humph.  132. 

Washington. — Sawyer  v.  Vermont 
Loan  &  Trust  Co.,  41  Wash.  524.  84 
Pac.  8. 

15  Sebastian  v.  Rose,  135  Ky.  197, 
122  S.  W.  120. 

16  Reinhart  Grocery  Co.  v.  Powell, 
158  Mo.  App.  458,  138  S.  W.  909; 
Wiley  V.  Mahood,  10  W.  Va.  206. 

17  Gray  r.  Richmond  Bicycle  Co., 
167  N.  Y.  348,  60  N.  E.  663,  82  Am. 
St.  Rep.  720,  reversing  40  App.  Div. 
506,  58  N.  Y.  S.  182. 

18  United  ,Sr«afes.— Stowe  v.  U.  S.,  19 
Wall.  13,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  144;  Robb 
r.  Vos,  155  U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct.  4,  39  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  52. 

Arkansas. — Byers  r.  Fowler,  14  Ark. 
86;  Mines  r.  Stephens,  90  Ark.  518, 
119   S.  W.  664. 


District  of  Columbia.— YiazXeton  v. 
Le  Due,  10  App.  Cas.  379. 

Illinois. — Leahy  v.  Stone,  115  111. 
App.  138. 

Joira. — Ryan  v.  Doyle,  31   Iowa  53. 

Massachusetts. — Savage  r.  Blanch- 
ard,  148  Mass.  348,  19  N.  E.  396. 

Minnesota. — Ruggles  v.  Swanwick, 
6  Minn.  526. 

Mississippi. — Bower  c.  Henshaw,  53 
Miss.  345. 

Missouri. — State  v.  Harringto?i,  100 
Mo.  170,  13  S.  W.  398. 

Pennsylvania. — Bowman  v.  Bow- 
man, 1  Pears.  465. 

The  payment  by  a  client  of  part  of 
a  judgment  rendered  against  him, 
amoimts  to  a  ratification  of  unauthor- 
ized acts  of  Iiis  attorney  through 
wliich  tlie  judgment  was  obtained. 
HcHerman  r.  Burt,  7  Iowa  320,  71 
Am.  Dec.  445. 

15  United  States. — Eader  v.  Maddox, 
150  U.  S.  128,  14  S.  Ct.  46,  37  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  1025,  reversing  9  Mont.  126, 
22  Pac.  386. 

Alabama. — Kirk  /;.  Glover,  5  Stew. 
&  P.  340;  Florence  Cotton  &  Iron  Co. 


378 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTJIOKITY. 


[§  212 


any  other  reasonable  hypothesis  than  that  of  approval  of  the  at- 
torney's acts.^°  Thus  the  compulsory  acceptance  of  such  benefits 
under  an  order  of  court,  does  not  preclude  the  client  from  there- 
after asserting-  his  rights  and  disregarding  an  alleged  compromise.'^ 
Xor  does  the  mere  attempt  to  take  advantage  of  the  transaction 
amount  to  a  ratification  where  the  client  fails  to  realize  thereon.^ 
Thus  a  client  cannot  be  deemed  to  have  ratified  a  payment  by 
reason  of  having  demanded  the  money  of  the  attorney,  upon  hear- 


r.  Louisville  Banking  Co.,  138  Ala. 
588,  36  So.  456,  100  Am.  St.  Rep.  50. 

Arkansas. — Ford  v.  Bigger,  80  Ark. 
300.  97  S.  W.  65. 

Illinois. — Marshall  v.  Moore,  30  111. 
321;   Wetherbee  r.  Fitch,   117  111.  07, 

7  X.  E.  513. 

Indiana. — Travellers'  Ins.  Co.  r. 
Patten,  119  Ind.  416,  20  N.  E.  790; 
Repp  r.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App.  167,  29  N. 
E.  441. 

Kentuclci). — Sebastian  v.  Rose,  135 
Ky.  197,  122  S.  W.  120. 

Louisiana. — Beau  v.  Drew,  15  La. 
Ann.  461 ;  Maraist  v.  Caillier,  30  La. 
Ann.  1087;  Culverhouse  v.  Marx,  39 
La.  Ann.  809,  2  So.  607. 

Maine. — Patten  r.  FuUerton,  27  Me. 
58;  Vose  r.  Treat,  58  Me.  378. 

Massachusetts. — Herring  r.    Polley, 

8  Mass.  113;  Pratt  r.  Putnam.  13 
Mass.  361.  And  see  Fisher  r.  Wil- 
lard,  13  Mass.  379. 

Michigan. — Lindner  r.  Hinc,  84 
Mich.  511,  48  X.  W.  43. 

Minnesota. — Compare  Biirgraf  r. 
Byrnes,  94  Minn.  418,  103  X.  W.  215. 

Missouri. — Semple  f.  Atkinson,  64 
Mo.  504;  Babcock  r.  United  R.  Co., 
158  Mo.  App.  275,  138  S.  W.  53. 

Xetc  Jersey. — Tooker  r.  Sloan,  30 
X.  .J.  E(|.  394. 

\rir  York.'  nrncdict  /•.  Siiiitli.  10 
\'iUil<-  \H\\  Ives  r.  Ives,  80  IIiiii  13(i, 
29    X.    Y.    S.    1053;    Patterson   f.   Mc- 


Govern,  44  App.  Div.  310,  60  X.  Y. 
S.  714;  Chadwick  v.  Manning,  7  X.  Y". 
S.  623. 

North  Carolina. — Christian  v.  Yar- 
borough,  124  X.  C.  72,  32  S.  E.  383. 

Ohio. — Julier  v.  Julier,  62  Ohio  St. 
90,  56  X.  E.  661,  78  Am.  St.  Rep. 
697 ;  Dunn  r.  Springmeier,  7  Ohio 
Dec.  (Reprint)  339,  2  Cine.  L.  Bui. 
127. 

Washington. — Collins  t".  Fidelity 
Trust  Co.,  33  Wash.  136,  73  Pac. 
1121;  State  v.  Spokane,  44  Wash.  088, 
87  Pac.  944. 

sOBatesville  Bank  v.  Maxey,  70 
Ark.  472,  88  S.  W.  968;  Bassford  r. 
Swift,  17  Misc.  149,  39  X.  Y.  S.  .337; 
Carter  r.  Roland.  53  Tex.  540;  Fosha 
V.  O'Donnell,  120  Wis.  336,  97  X.  W. 
924. 

1  Timm  v.  Timm,  34  Wash.  228.  75 
Pac.  879. 

2  Davis  r.  Severance,  49  Minn.  528, 
52  X.  W.  140. 

A  creditor  does  not  alTirm  his  at- 
torney's act,  in  taking  bonds  from 
the  debtor,  by  prosecuting  a  suit  at 
his  own  expense  on  the  bonds,  if  he 
do(s  not  realize  his  debt.  Wilkinson 
r.  lloUoway,  7  Leigh   (Va.)   277. 

But  see  Memphis  St.  R.  Co.  /•.  Roc. 
lis  Tenn.  601,  102  S.  W.  343.  wluMvin 
it  was  held  that  where  the  plaintiff's 
att()rM(\v  settles  with  the  defendant 
without  authority  from  his  client  and 


§  213] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEYS    AlTIIuini' V. 


ing  that  he  had  it;  ^  nor  does  a  client  ratify  an  unauthorized  pay- 
ment, at  the  direction  of  his  attorney,  of  a  judginent  debt  to  a 
third  person,  by  undertaking,  by  a  draft  on  sucli  person,  to  obtain 
the  money.'* 

§  213,  Ratification  by  Failing  to  Object. — A  client  cannot 
sit  idly  by  and,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  facts,  allow  an  attorney 
to  act  for  him,  take  the  chances  of  satisfactory  results,  and  then 
deny  the  attorney's  authority.  In  such  cases  the  failure  to  object 
will  be  deemed  a  sufficient  ratification  of  the  attorney's  acts.^ 
But  the  mere  failure  expressly  to  disavow  the  acts  of  an  attorney 
will  not,  in  itself,  be  a  conclusive  ratification  thereof ;  ^  thus  it 
has  been  held  that  knowledge  by  a  client  that  his  attorney  is  being- 
assisted  by  associate  counsel,  is  not  enough  to  show  that  the  client 
ratifies  the  employment,  on  his  behalf,  by  his  counsel  of  such 
attorney ;  such  assistance  being  consistent  with  the  employment 
of  the  attorney  to  assist  the  counsel  at  the  latter's  expense;  "^  but 
such  employment  would  be  ratified  if  the  client  had  reason   to 


embezzlos  tlio  proceeds  of  tlie  settle- 
ment, the  appearance  of  the  client  as 
prosecutor  in  a  criminal  proceeding 
against  the  attorney  for  embezzle- 
ment constitutes  a  ratification  of  the 
settlement,  and  hence  the  client  can- 
not thereafter  recover  in  an  action 
against  the  original  defendant. 

3  Humphrey  r.  Thorp,  89  Fed.  66 : 
Cameron  r.  Stratton,  34  111.  App.  270. 

4  Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v.  Wright, 
47  Tex.  Civ.  App.  458,  107  S.  W.  77. 

5  Alabama. — Hitchcock  v.  McGehee, 
7  Port.  556. 

California. — Pacific  Pav.  Co.  v.  Viz- 
elich,  2  Cal.  App.  515,  8-3  Pac.  459. 

Indiar.a. — Newman  r.  Kiser,  128 
Ind.  258,  26  N.  E.  1006;  Palmer  r. 
Miller,  3  9  Ind.  App.  624,  49  N.  E. 
975. 

Kansas. — Rasure  v.  McGrath,  23 
Kan.  598. 


Michigan. — Hirsh  v.  Fisher,  13S 
Mich.  95,  101  N.  W.  48. 

ISleiv  York. — Lockner  v.  Holland.  81 
N.  Y.  S.  730. 

North  Carolina. — Rogers  V.  Mc- 
Kenzie,  81  N.  C.  164. 

North  Dakota. — Bacon  v.  Mitchell, 
14  N.  D.  454,  106  X.  W.  129,  4  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  244;  Van  Gordon  v.  Goldamer, 
16  N.  D.  323,  113  N.  W.  609. 

Pennsylvania. — Bingham  r.  Guthrie, 
19  Pa.  St.  418. 

Tennessee. — Smith  v.  Quarles,  46 
S.  W.  1035. 

Washington. — Lambert  v.  Gillette, 
24  Wash.  726,  64  Pac.  784. 

West  Virginia. — Teter  v.  Irwin,  69 
\N.  Va.  200,  Ann.  Cas.  1913A  707.  71 
S.  E.  115. 

6  Hammond  v.  Evans,  23  Ind.  App. 
501,  55  X.  E.  784. 

7Lathrop  r.  Hallett,  20  Colo.  App. 
207,  77  Pac.  1095. 


380 


SCOPE  OF  ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


[§  214 


know  that  it  was  meant  to  be  at  his  expense,  and  pcnnitteJ  it 
to  continue  without  objection.^ 

§  214,  Laches  as  Ratification.  —  Laches  on  the  part  of  a 
client  Avho  has  knowledge  of  the  facts,  will  also  be  deemed  a  ratifi- 
cation of  an  attorney's  unauthorized  acts.^  There  can  be  no  ratifi- 
cation, however,  on  the  ground  of  laches  until  the  client  has 
knowledge  of  the  facts ;  ^°  but  when  he  has  acquired  such  knowl- 


8  See  siijyra,  §  212. 

9  United  States.— 'Slayer  v.  Foulk- 
rod,  4  Wash.  503,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,342. 

Alaha7na. — Gardner  v.  Mobile  &  N. 
W.  R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  03.3,  15  So.  271, 
48  Am.  St.  Rep.  84. 

Indiana. — Newman  v.  Kiser,  128 
Ind.  258,  26  N.  E.  1006. 

Iowa. — See  Reid  v.  Dickinson,  37 
Iowa  56. 

Kentucky. — Loughridge  v.  Burk- 
hart,  147  Ky.  457,  144  S.  W.  65. 

Louisiana. — Brooks  v.  Poirier,  10 
La.  Ann.  512. 

Massachusetts. — Swett  v.  South- 
worth,  125  Mass.  417. 

Michigan. — See  Webber  v.  Barry, 
06  Mich.  127:  33  N.  W.  289,  11  Am.  St. 
Rep.  466. 

Mississippi. — Anketell  v.  Torre}',  7 
Smedes  &  M.  467. 

Neic  Jersey. — Patterson  v.  Read,  43 
N.  J.  Eq.  18,  10  Atl.  807. 

\ew  York. — Cliautaiiqua  County 
Bank  r.  Risley,  4  Denio  480;  Finlay 
V.  Heyward,  35  Misc.  266,  71  N.  Y.  S. 
779,  reversing  34  Misc.  818,  69  N.  Y. 
S.  648. 

Pennsylvania. — Filby  v.  ^lillor,  25 
Pa.  St.  264. 

Virginia. — .Tolinson  v.  C.ihhons,  27 
C;rat.   032. 

10  United  States. — Williams  v. 
l!.-cd.  3  MaHon  405,  29  Fed.  Gas.  No. 


17,733;  U.  S.  V.  Beebe,  180  U.  S.  343, 
21  S.  Ct.  371,  45  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  563; 
Harper  v.  National  L.  Ins.  Co.,  50  Fed. 
281,  17  U.  S.  App.  48,  5  C.  C.  A.  505. 

Alabama. — Hitchcock  v.  McGehee, 
7  Port.  550. 

Illinois. — Danziger  v.  Pittslield 
Shoe  Co.,  204  111.  145,  68  N.  E.  534, 
107  111.  App.  47. 

Indiana. — Hammond  v.  Evans,  23 
Ind.  App.  501,  55  N.  E.  784. 

loica. — Gillilland  v.  Brantner,  145 
la.  275,  121  N.  W.  1047. 

Maryland. — Horsey  v.  Chew,  65  Md. 
555,   5   Atl.   466. 

Mississippi. — Garvin  v.  Lowry,  7 
Smedes  &  M.  24. 

Missouri. — Wonderly  v.  Martin,  69 
Mo.  App.  84. 

Nebraska. — Cram  v.  Sickel,  51  Neb. 
828,  71  N.  W.  724,  66  Am.  St.  Rep. 
478. 

Wisconsin. — Kelly  v.  Wright,  65 
Wis.  236,  20  N.  W.  610;  Fosha  v. 
O'Donnell,  120  Wis.  336,  97  N.  W. 
924. 

An  entry  of  a  discontinuance  is 
sufficient  to  put  a  plaintiff  on  inquiry, 
so  that  he  will  be  held  to  have  rati- 
fied the  unauthorized  act  of  his  at- 
lorncy  in  making  the  same  by  acquies- 
cence, tliougli  liis  attorney  never  gave 
him  any  actual  notice  of  such  discon- 
tinuance. Filby  t\  Miller,  25  Pa.  St. 
264. 


214] 


SCOPE    OF   ATTORNEY  S  AUTHORITY. 


381 


edge  he  should  act  promptly.^^  The  question  whether  the  client 
disavowed  the  act  of  his  attorney  within  a  reasonable  time  after 
notice,  is  one  for  the  court. ^^  Laches  has  been  discussed  here- 
tofore in  other  connections  of  similar  import. ^^ 


11  Dorman  v.  Arkin,  120  N.  Y.  S. 
757. 

In  Lasley  v.  Lackey,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
896,  it  was  said:  "Tlie  execution 
plaintiff  having  disapproved  of  the 
action  of  his  attorney  in  bidding  for 
him  when  notified  of  it,  the  fact  that 
he  waited  three  years  before  institut- 
ing suit  to  set  aside  the  sale,  and  in 
the  meantime  collected  the  remainder 
of  his  execution  after  his  attorney's 
bid  had  been  subtracted  therefrom  by 
the  officer  making  the  return,  does  not 
constitute  an  estoppel." 

But  see  Fenimore  v.  White,  78  Neb. 
520,  111  N.  W.  204,  wherein  it  was 
held    that    where    the    plaintiff's    at- 


torney received  a  certain  sum  in  full 
satisfaction  of  a  claim  for  use  and 
occupation  against  the  defendant,  and 
it  was  paid  over  to  the  landlord,  who 
did  not  object  thereto  until  a  month 
after  he  received  the  money,  and 
never  returned  or  offered  to  return  it, 
any  unauthorized  act  of  the  attorney 
was  ratified. 

12  Harper  v.  National  L.  Ins.  Co., 
56  Fed.  281,  17  U.  S.  App.  48,  5  C.  C. 
A.  505. 

Twenty  days'  delay  after  unauthor- 
ized compromise  held  not  a  ratifica- 
tion. Jennings  v.  South  Whitley 
Hoop  Co.,  (Ind.)   98  N.  E.  194. 

13  See  supra,  §§  163,  173. 


CHAPTEK  XI. 

AUTHORITY  TO  COMPROMISE  OR  RELEASE. 

Compromise  Unauthorized  by  Client. 

§  215.  General  Rule. 

216.  Application  of  Rule. 

217.  In  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and  South  Carolina. 

218.  In  Emergencies. 

219.  Acceptance  of  Payment  Otherwise  than  in  Money. 

220.  Accepting  Less  tlian  Amount  Due. 

221.  Effect  of  Unauthorized  Compromise. 

222.  When  Set  Aside, 

223.  Rule  in  Canada. 

224.  Rule  in  England. 

Compromise  Authorized  by  Client, 

225.  Operation  and  Extent  of  Authority. 

226.  Sufficiency    of   Authority. 


Release. 


227.  Generally. 

228.  Release  of  Attached  Property. 


Co)ii promise  Unauthorized  by  Client. 

§  215.  General  Rule. —  While  counsel  has  the  uiidonLted 
right,  and  it  is  his  dutv,  to  advise  his  elient  to  accept  an  advan- 
tageous com])romise,  provided  he  neither  makes,  nor  causes  to  be 
made,  any  false  statement  of  fact  to  induce  such  compromise  by 
the  adverse  party, ^  he  has  not,  without  authority  from  his  client, 
the  power  to  compromise  a  cause  of  action,  either  pending  or  to 

1  T'.iui.l  r.  O'Day,    125  Fed.  .30:?. 

382 


i 


§    215]  AUTJIOKITY    TO    COMPRO^MISE    Oil    ItELKASK. 


383 


be  instituted,   in  whieli  lie  has  been  retained   as  counsel.^     The 
power  of  an  attorney  is  not  co-equal  with,  co-extensive  with,  or 


2  United  .S7a.^r.s.— Holker  v.  Parker, 
7  Crancli  436,  3  U.  S.  ( L.  ed.)  396; 
Pierce  v.  Brown,  8  Biss.  534,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,143;  Abbt>  v.  Rood,  6 
McLean  106,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6; 
Bates  V.  Seabury,  1  Sprague  433,  2 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,104;  U.  S.  v.  Beebe, 
180  U.  S.  343,  21  S.  Ct.  371,  4.5  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  563:  Harper  i\  National 
L.  Ins.  Co.,  56  Fed.  281,  17  U.  S. 
App.  48,  5  C.  C.  A.  505;  Humplney 
V.  Thorp,  89  Fed.  66;  Miocene  Ditch 
Co.  V.  Moore,  150  Fed.  483,  80  C.  C. 
A.   301. 

Alabama. — Gullett  v.  Lewis,  3 
Stew.  23;  Robinson  r.  Murphy,  69 
Ala.  543;  Hall  Safe,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Harwell.  88  Ala.  441,  6  So.  750;  Senn 
r.  Joseph,  106  Ala.  454,  17  So.  543. 

Arkansas. — Pickett  r.  Merchants' 
Nat.  Bank,  32  Ark.  346:  CuUin-Mc- 
Curdy  Constr.  Co.  r.  Vulcan  Iron 
Works,  93  Ark.  342,  124  S.  W.  1023. 

California. — Preston  r.  Hill,  50  Cal. 
43,  19  Am.  Rep.  647 ;  Ambrose  v. 
McDonald,  53  Cal.  28:  Trope  v. 
Kerns,  83   Cal.  553,  23  Pac.   (191. 

Colorado. — Hallack  r.  Loft,  19 
Colo.  74,  34  Pac.  568;  Richardson 
Drug  Co.  V.  Dunagan,  8  Colo.  App. 
308,   46    Pac.   227. 

Connecticut. — Derwort  v.  Loomer, 
21  Conn.  245. 

Delaware. — Wood  v.  Bangs,  2  Penn. 
435,  48  Atl.  189.  Compare  Strattner 
r.  Wilmington  City  Electric  Co.,  3 
Penn.   453,    53    Atl.   436. 

Georgia. — Phillips  r.  Dobl)ins.  56 
Ga.  617;  Mclntyre  v.  Mehlrim,  63 
Ga.  58;  Kidd  r.  HufT,  105  Ga.  209, 
31  S.  E.  430;  Sonnebom  r.  Moore, 
105    Ga.    497,    30    S.    E.   947;    Kaiser 


r.  Hancock,  100  Ga.  217.  32  S.  E. 
123. 

Illinois. — Nolan  v.  Jackson.  16  111. 
272;  Wadhams  v.  Gay,  73  111.  41.V. 
Wetherbee  r.  Fitch,  117  111.  67,  7  N. 
E.  513;  McClintock  o.  Helberg,  168 
111.  384.  48  N.  E.  145;  Danziger  r. 
Pittsfield  Shoe  Co.,  204  111.  145.  fiS 
N.  E.  534,  affirming  107  111.  App.  47: 
Schroeder  v.  Wolf,  227  111.  133,  81 
N.  E.  13,  affirming  127  111.  App.  506; 
Miller  V.  Lane,  13  111.  App.  648; 
Heifer  v.  Spunner,  147  HI.  App.  448; 
Schreiber  r.  Straus,  147  111.  App.  581. 

Indiana. — Miller  v.  Edmonston,  S 
Blackf.  291;  Wakeman  v.  Jon.s,  1 
Ind.  517;  Repp  c.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App. 
167,  29  N.  E.  441  ;  Jennings  r.  White- 
ly  Hoop  Co.,  98  N.  E.  194. 

loua. — Stuck  V.  Reese,  15  la.  122: 
Bigler  v.  Toy,  68  la.  687,  28  N.  W. 
17;  Martin  v.  Capital  Ins.  Co..  85 
la.  643,  52  N.  W.  534:  Rliutasel  r. 
Rule,  97  la.  20,  65  N.  W.  1013;  Kil- 
mer V.  Gallaher,  112  la.  583,  84  N. 
W.  697,  84  Am.  St.  Rep.  358.  Com- 
pare Potter  V.  Parsons,  14  la.  286. 

Kansas. — Jones  v.  Inness,  32  Kan. 
177,  4  Pac.  95;  Solomon  R.  Co.  r. 
Jones,  34  Kan.  458,  8  Pac.  730; 
Ilaverty  r.  Haverty,  35  Kan.  438,  11 
Pac.    364. 

Kentucly. — Smith  v.  Dixon,  3 
Mete.  438;  Heath  v.  Com.  129  Ky. 
8.35,  113  S.  W.  69;  Sebastian  r.  Rose, 
135  Ky.  197,  122  S.  W.  120;  Hall  r. 
Wright,  137  Ky.  39.  127  S.  W.  516; 
Loughridge  v.  Burkhart,  147  Ky.  457, 
144  S.  W.  65;  O'Reiley  r.  Call,  7 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  516;  Lexington,  etc.,  Min. 
Co.  V.  Welburn,  1 1  Ky.  L.  Rep.  307 ; 
Brown    v.   Bunger,   43   S.   W.    714,    19 


384 


AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE. 


[§  215 


equivalent  to  tliat  of  the  client.    He  is  a  special  agent,  limited  in 
dutv  and  authority  to  the  vigilant  prosecution  or  defense  of  his 


Ky.  L.  Rep.  1527;  Cox  v.  Adelsdorf, 
51  S.  W.  61 G;  Benedict  V.  Wilhoite, 
80  S.  W.  1155;  Sebree  r.  Sebree,  99 
S.  W.  282;  National  Bank  of  Com- 
merce r.  Bowman,  100  S.  W.  831. 

Louisiana. — Dupre  i\  Splane,  16 
La.  51 ;  Phelps  v.  Preston,  9  La.  Ann. 
488;  Landry's  Succession,  117  La. 
193,   41   So.   490. 

Maine. — Jenney  v.  Delesdernior,  20 
Me.  183;  Pomeroy  V.  Prescott,  106 
Me.  401,  21  Ann.  Cas.  574,  76  Atl. 
898,  138  Am.  St.   Rep.   347. 

Manjland. — Doub  v.  Barnes,  4  Gill 
1  :  Doub  V.  Barnes,  1  Md.  Ch.  127 ; 
Maddux  v.  Bevan,  39  Md.  485;  Rohr 
V.  Anderson,  51  Md.  205;  Hamburger 
V.  Paul,  51  Md.  219;  Fritchey  v. 
Bosley,  56  Md.  94;  Horsey  v.  Chew, 
65  Md.  555,  5  Atl.  466;  Real  Estate 
Trust  Co.  V.  Union  Trust  Co.,  102 
Md.  41,  61  Atl.  228. 

Michigan. — Eaton  v.  Knowles,  61 
Mich.  625,  28  N.  W.  740;  Fetz  v. 
Leyendecker,  157  Mich.  355,  122  N. 
W.  100. 

Minnesota. — Davis  v.  Severance,  49 
Minn.  528,  52  N.  W.  140;  Burgraf 
r.  Byrnes,  94  IMinn.  418,  103  X.  W. 
215;  Gibson  i'.  Nelson,  111  Minn.  183, 
126  N.  W.  731,  137  Am.  St.  Rep.  549, 
31  L.R.A.(N.S.)   523. 

Mississippi. — Fitch  r.  Scott,  3  How. 
314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86;  Levy  r.  Brown, 
56  Miss.  83;  Parker  r.  McBeo.  (il 
Miss.  134;  Rice  r.  Tnnip,  62  Mi.ss. 
186. 

Missouri. —  Davidson  r.  Rozicr,  23 
Mo.  387;  \Val(i<-ii  r.  I'.dltim,  .')5  Mo. 
405;  Sjirars  r.  I,c(lrr;,n'rl»t'r.  56  .Mo. 
465;  Scrnj)l('  r.  Atkinson.  64  Mo. 
504;     F'.lack    r.    Ho-rcrs.    75    Mo.   441; 


Melcher  V.  Jefferson  City  Exchange 
Bank,  85  Mo.  362;  State  v.  Clifford, 
124  Mo.  492,  28  S.  W.  5;  Roberts  V. 
Nelson,  22  Mo.  App.  28;  Lewis  v. 
Baker,  24  Mo.  App.  682;  Williard 
V.  A.  Siegel  Gas-Fixture  Co.,  47  Mo. 
App.  1 ;  Barton  v.  Hunter,  59  Mo. 
App.  610;  Bay  v.  Trusdell,  92  Mo. 
App.  377;  Sclilemmer  v.  Schlemmer, 
107  Mo.  App.  487,  81  S.  W.  636; 
Kelly  V.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  113  Mo. 
App.  468,  87  S.  W.  583.  See  also 
Grumley  r.  Webb,  48  ]\Io.  562. 

Montana. — Harris  v.  Root,  28  Mont. 
168,  72  Pac.  429. 

Nebraska. — Hamrick  v.  Combs,  14 
Neb.  381,  15  N.  W.  731;  Smith  v. 
Jones,  47  Neb.  108,  66  N.  W.  19,  53 
Am.   St.   Rep.   519. 

New  Jersey. — Phillips  r.  Pullen,  50 
N.  J.  L.  439,  14  Atl.  222;  Fauglinan 
r.  Elizabeth,  58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl. 
212;  Watts  V.  Frenche,  19  N.  J.  Eq. 
407 ;  Dickerson  v.  Hodges,  43  N.  J. 
Eq.    46,    10    Atl.    111. 

New  York. — Barrett  r.  Third  Ave. 
R.  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  628;  Beers  v.  Hen- 
drickson,  45  N.  Y.  665,  modifying  6 
Robt.  53;  Cox  v.  New  York  Cent., 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  414;  Mande- 
ville  V.  Reynolds,  68  N.  Y.  528,  af- 
firming 5  Hun  338;  Lewis  v.  Duane, 
141  N.  Y.  302,  36  N.  E.  322,  affirming 
6!)  llun  28,  23  N.  Y.  S.  433;  Bush 
r.  O'Brien,  164  N.  Y.  210,  58  N.  E. 
106;  Sliaw  r.  Kidder,  2  How.  Pr.  243; 
Sniitli  r.  Bradhurst,  18  Misc.  546,  41 
N.  Y.  S.  1002,  affirmed  31  App.  Div 
its,  -y>  N.  Y.  S.  527;  Matter  of  Neu 
f.ld.  50  Misc.  215.  100  N.  Y.  S.  444 
Woodford  r.  Rasbach,  6  Civ.  Pro 
.'515,  appeal  dismissed  99  N.  Y.  659; 


215] 


AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE. 


385 


client's  rights.  He  can  enter  into  no  bargains  or  contracts  which 
will  bind  his  client,  nnless  the  client  has  specially  authorized  or 
subsequently  ratified  them.  All  who  deal  with  an  attorney  must 
ascertain  the  extent  of  liis  authority ;  and  if  they  do  not  inquire, 
they  can  claim  no  protection  because  they  indulged  suppositions 
or  conjectures,  reasonable  or  unreasonable,  that  he  had  the  au- 


McKechnie  r.  McKochnie,  3  App.  Div. 
91,  39  N.  Y.  S.  402;  Diamond  Soda 
Water  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hegeman,  74  App. 
Div.  430,  77  N.  Y.  S.  417;  Matter  of 
Amsterdam  Ave.,  112  App.  Div.  160, 
98  N.  Y.  S.  331. 

North  Carolina. — Moye  v.  Cogdell, 
69   N.   C.  93. 

Ohio. — Holden  r.  Lippert,  4  Ohio 
Cir.  Dec.  527 ;   Countee  v.  Armstrong, 

9  Ohio  Dee.  (Reprint)  G2,  10  Cine. 
L.   Bui.  339. 

Oklahoma.  —  Turner  v.  Fleming, 
130   Pac.   551. 

Oregon. — Fleishman  v.  Meyer,  46 
Ore.  267,  80  Pac.  209. 

Pennsylvania. — Huston  v.  Mitchell, 

14  S.  &  R.  307,  16  Am.  Dec.  506; 
Dodds  V.  Dodds,  9  Pa.  St.  315;  Filby 
V.  Miller,  25  Pa.  St.  264;  Stokely  v. 
Robinson,  34  Pa.  St.  315;  House- 
nick  V.  Miller,  93  Pa.  St.  514;  Mackey 
r.  Adair,  99  Pa.  St.  143 ;  North  White- 
hall Tp.  V.  Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105, 
45  Am.  Rep.  361,  12  W.  K  C.  177; 
Isaacs  V.  Zugsmith,  103  Pa.  St.  77; 
Brockley  v.  Brockley,   122  Pa.   St.   1, 

15  Atl.  646;  Johnstown,  etc.,  R.  Co. 
V.  Egbert,  152  Pa.  St.  53,  25  Atl. 
151;  Gray  v.  Howell,  205  Pa.  St.  211, 
54  Atl.  774;  Schroeder  v.  Gillespie,  2 
Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  221;  Callahan  v.  Quig- 
ley,  6  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  494;  Ely  r.  Lamb, 

10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  209;  Schuylkill  River 
Road,   20   Pa.   Co.   Ct.  559. 

Rhode  Island. — Whipple    V.    Whit- 
man,  13  R.  I.   512,  43  Am.  Rep.  42. 
Tennessee. — ]\Iathews   v.   Massey,   4 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 25. 


Baxt.  450;  Conley  v.  Whitthorne,  58 
S.  W.  380;  Davis  V.  Home  Ins.  Co., 
155  S.  W.  131. 

Texas. — Pierrepont  v.  Sassec,  1 
Tex.  App.  Civ.  Cas.  §  1295;  Adams 
V.  Roller,  35  Te.x.  711;  Roller  v.  Wool- 
dridge,  46  Tex.  485;  Anderson  v.  Old- 
liam,  82  Tex.  231,  18  S.  \Y.  557;  Tay- 
lor V.  Evans,  29  S.  W.  172;  Cook  v. 
Greenberg,  34  S.  W.  687;  Youngberg 
r.  El  Paso  Brick  Co.,  155  S.  W.  715. 

Vermont. — Penniman  v.  Patchin,  5 
Vt.  346;  Vail  v.  Conant,  15  Vt.  314; 
Granger  v.  Batchelder,  54  Vt.  248, 
41  Am.  Rep.  846;  Brown  v.  Mead,  68 
Vt.  215,  34  Atl.  950. 

Virginia. — Smock  V.  Dade,  5  Rand. 
639,  16  Am.  Dec.  780;  Carter  v. 
Cooper,    111   Va.   602,   69    S.    E.   944. 

Washington. — Budlong  v.  Budlong, 
31  Wash.  228,  71  Pac.  751;  Timm  v. 
Timm,  34  Wash.  228,  75  Pac.  879. 

West  Virginia. — Wiley  v.  Mahood, 
10  W.  Va.  206;  Crotty  V.  Eagle,  35 
W.  Va.  143,   13  S.  E.  59. 

Wisconsin. — Kelly  v.  Wright,  65 
Wis.  236,  26  N.  W.  610;  Mygatt  V. 
Tarbell,  85  Wis.  457,  55  N.  W.  1031; 
Fosha  r.  O'Donnell,  120  Wis.  336, 
97   N.   W.   924. 

An  attorney,  without  authority, 
compromised  his  client's  cause  of  ac- 
tion after  action  was  brought  there- 
on, and  stipulated  for  a  dismissal 
upon  the  merits.  Thereafter  the 
client,  through  another  attorney, 
brought  a  new  action  upon  the  same 
cause,  and  defendant  pleaded  in  bar 


586 


AL'TIIORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OK    RELEASE. 


[§  216 


thority  he  was  exercising.^  An  attorney  certainly  cannot  bind 
his  client  by  any  unauthorized  act  which  amounts  to  a  total  or 
partial  surrender  of  a  substantial  right.*  In  some  jurisdictions, 
however,  this  rule  has  been  modified  by  statute.*  An  unauthorized 
compromise  may  of  course  be  ratified.^ 

§  216.  Application  of  Rule.  —   The  foregoing  general  rule 
is  applicable,  not  alone  to  the  compromise  of  the  client's  cause  of 


the  compromise  and  settlement,  to 
which  plaintiff  replied  that  the  settle- 
ment was  unautliorized,  and  fraudu- 
lently entered  into  by  the  attorney. 
Held,  that  the  validity  of  the  com- 
promise and  settlement,  the  stipula- 
tion evidencing  the  same  not  having 
been  followed  by  judgment,  was  a 
proper  issue  in  the  case,  and  that 
the  rule  against  collateral  attack 
did  not  apply.  Gibson  v.  Nelson, 
111  Minn.  183,  126  N.  W.  731,  137 
Am-  St.  Rep.  549,  31  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
523. 

3  Robinson  v.  Murphy,  69  Ala.  543, 
following  Gullett  v.  Lewis,  3  Stew. 
(Ala.)    23. 

4  Pomeroy  v.  Prescott,  106  Me.  401, 
21  Ann.  Cas.  574,  76  Atl.  898,  138 
Am.  St.  Rep.  347.  See  also  Har- 
bach  V.  Colvin,  73  la.  638,  35  N.  W. 
(!63;  Dickerson  i'.  Hodges,  43  N.  J. 
Eq.  46,  10  Atl.  Ill;  Lewis  r.  Duane, 
141  N.  Y.  313,  36  N.  E.  322;  Smith 
V.   Lamberts,   7   Grat.    (Va.)    142. 

5  77/e  Alabama  Code  provides  that 
"an  attorney  has  authority  to  bind 
liis  client,  in  any  action  or  proceed- 
ing, by  any  agreement  in  relation  to 
such  cause,  made  in  writing,  or  by  an 
entry  to  be  made  on  the  minutes  of 
the  court."  Code  of  1907,  §  2988. 
See  also  B.  F.  Roden  Grocery  Co.  v. 
McAfee,  160  Ala.  564,  49  So.  402. 

In  Mainr  it  is  provided  by  section 
59  of  cliapter  84  of  the  Revised  Stat- 
utes that  "no   action   aliall   be  main- 


tained on  a  demand  settled  by  a  cred- 
itor, or  his  attorney  intrusted  to 
collect  it,  in  full  discharge  thereof, 
by  the  receipt  of  money  or  other  val- 
uable consideration,  however  small." 
The  original  statute  of  1851  (Acts 
1851,  c.  213,  §  1)  was  construed  and 
given  effect  in  Fogg  v.  Sanborn,  48 
Me.  432.  See  also  Bonney  v.  Morrill, 
57  Me.  368. 

But  in  Pomeroy  r.  Prescott.  106 
Me.  401,  21  Ann.  Cas.  574,  76  Atl. 
898,  138  Am.  St.  Rep.  347,  it  was 
held  that  the  statute  does  not  apply 
where  there  is  no  settlement  of  the 
demand  "in  full  discharge  thereof," 
or  where  no  valuable  consideration  is 
received  by  the  attorney  for  waiving 
and  releasing  part  of  his  client's 
claim. 

Under  the  Vermont  statute  (R.  L., 
§  1450;  V.  S.,  §  1692)  authorizing 
the  tender  of  damages,  such  tender 
may  be  made  to  the  plaintiff's  at- 
torney, and  may  be  accepted  by  him; 
but  the  plaintiff,  notwithstanding 
such  tender  and  acceptance  of  dam- 
ages, may  proceed  with  his  action  for 
the  balance  of  his  claim,  and  his 
right  to  do  so  is  not  affected  by  a 
discontinuance  entered  by  liis  attor- 
ney. Brown  <;.  Mead,  68  Vt.  215,  34 
Atl.   950. 

0  l?eagles  r.  Robertson,  135  Mo. 
App.  306,  115  S.  W.  1042.  And  see 
supra,  §§  211-214. 


§     -ilGj  ArTlloIilTV     TO    COMPKOMISE    OR    RELPlASE, 


387 


action/  but  to  every  other  substantial  right  of  the  client ;  thus  the 
attorney  cannot  in  any  case,  without  express  authority,  accept 
less  than  the  amount  due  his  client  in  satisfaction  of  liens,  judg-- 
ments,  or  other  claims,'  nor  can  he  accept  payment  otherwise 
than  in  money.'  The  rule  also  applies  to  a  proctor  in  admiralty,^" 
the  attorney  for  a  trustee,"  and  a  prosecuting  attorney  ^*  even 
where  the  government  is  a  party.^^  So,  the  rule  has  been  ap- 
plied to  ejectment  suits,"  to  the  statutory  foreclosure  of  a  mort- 
gage,^* to  the  collection  of  notes, ^®  and  likewise  to  other  claims." 


7  See  the  cases  cited  under  the  pre- 
ceding   section. 

8  See   infra,   §   220. 

9  See  infra,   §  219. 

10  Bates  V.  Seabury,  1  Sprague  433, 
2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,104. 

11  The  attorney  for  a  trustee  can- 
not contract  to  waive  the  rights  of 
the  trust  estate.  Except  in  the  man- 
agement of  the  particular  action,  he 
has  no  authority  or  power  to  preju- 
dice the  substantial  rights  of  the 
estate,  of  the  trustee  or  of  the  cestui 
que  trust.  Spaulding  v.  Allen.  10 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  397,  19  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
008. 

12  A  prosecuting  attorney  has  no 
authority,  even  with  the  consent  of 
the  judge  at  vacation  or  in  chambers, 
to  release  the  surety  on  a  forfeited 
recognizance  on  the  payment  to  him 
of  his  fees  and  the  costs  of  prosecu- 
tion. A  forfeiture  of  a  recognizance 
can  be  remitted  only  by  the  court  in 
which  the  forfeiture  is  entered  "upon 
cause  shown,"  by  its  entry  of  record. 
State  V.  Clifford,  124  Mo.  402.  28 
S.  W.  5. 

An  attorney  employed  to  prosecute 
an  agent  on  a  criminal  charge  of  em- 
bezzling funds  has  no  authority  to 
compromise  the  case.  Harper  t).  Na- 
tional L.  Ins.  Co.,  56  Fed.  281,  17 
U.  S.  App.  48,  5  C.  C.  A.  505. 

13  The  power  to  compromise  a  suit 


in  which  the  United  States  is  a  party 
does  not  exist  in  the  district  attor- 
ney any  more  than  a  power  to  com- 
promise a  private  suit  between  indi- 
viduals rests  witli  the  attorney  for 
either  party.  U.  S.  v.  Beebe,  180  U. 
S.  343,  21  S.  Ct.  371,  45  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)    503. 

HDodds  r.  Dodds,  9  Pa.  St.  315; 
Mackey  v.  Adair,  99  Pa.  St.  143; 
Hiekey  v.  Stringer,  3  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
45,   21    S.  W.   716. 

An  attorney  conducting  an  eject- 
ment suit  has  no  riglit  without  the 
client's  authority  to  enter  into  a  com- 
promise fixing  upon  a  certain  line  as 
the  boundary  line  between  the  tracts 
of  the  parties  litigant.  Mackey  v. 
Adair,  99  Pa.   St.   143. 

iSHirsh  t7.  Beverly,  125  Ga.  657, 
54  S.  E.  678;  McKechnie  v.  McKech- 
nie,  3  App.  Div.  91,  39  N.  Y.  S.  402. 

16  Holden  v.  Lippert,  4  Ohio  Cir. 
Dec.  527. 

An  attorney  having  in  his  hands 
certain  notes  for  collection,  has  no 
authority  to  include  in  a  settlement 
which  he  makes  with  a  party  liable 
thereon,  notes  which  have  not  been 
placed  in  liis  hands.  Melcher  v.  Ex- 
change Bank,  85  Mo.  362. 

17  Where  a  debtor  makes  an  assign- 
ment for  the  henefit  of  creditors,  a 
creditor  who  does  not  attend  the 
meetings  of  the  creditors,  but  is  rep- 


388 


AUTIIOKITY    TO    C0MPE0:MISE    OR    RELEASE.  [§     217 


Xor  is  the  rule  any  the  less  effective  where  the  client  is  a  non- 
resident.^* 


§  217.  In  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and  South  Car- 
olina. —  The  general  rule,  stated  above/^  is  applied  in  these 
jurisdictions  with  certain  modifications. 

In  Massachusetts  it  seems  that  whether,  under  a  general  em- 
ployment, an  attorney  is  authorized,  without  permission,  to  com- 
promise his  client's  claim,  either  before  or  after  a  suit  has  been 
brought,  is  an  open  question.^"  Thus  the  general  rule  is  applied 
to  the  extent  that  the  attorney  cannot  accept  payment  other  than 
in  money,^  nor  less  than  the  amount  due.^  So,  also,  an  attorney 
has  no  power  to  settle  a  cause  against  the  express  prohibition  of 
his  client;  and  where  such  an  agreement  of  settlement  is  entered 
of  record,  the  court,  if  the  parties  can  be  put  in  statu  quo,  may 
order  it  stricken  from  the  files.'  jSTor  will  an  executory  agree- 
ment for  the  settlement  of  a  suit  be  enforced  in  equity  where  it 
has  not  been  entered  of  record,*  or  where  it  was  made  by  the 
plaintiff's  attorney  under  a  mistake  of  fact  as  to  his  authority.^ 


resented  at  such  meetings  by  his  coun- 
sel, is  not  bound  by  an  agreement 
entered  into  by  such  creditors  and 
the  assignee  to  accept  a  proposed  div- 
idend in  full  satisfaction  of  their 
claims,  though  it  seems  that  this 
might  be  otherwise  if  the  creditor 
had  express  notice  of  a  meeting  to 
make  a  composition,  and  attended 
such  meeting  by  attorney.  Isaacs  r. 
Zugsraith,   103   Pa.   St.   77. 

18  Benedict  v.  Wilhoite,  80  S.  W. 
115.),  20  Ky.  L.  Rep.  178;  Housenick 
r.  Miller,  93  Pa.  St.  514 ;  Granger  v. 
Batchelder,  54  Vt.  248,  41  Am.  Rep. 
84G.  (^ompare  Glass  V.  Tliompscn,  9 
B.   Mon.    (Ky.)    235. 

In  Clark  v.  Kingsland,  1  Smed.  & 
M.  (Miss.)  248,  it  was  held  that  it 
is  not  competent  to  ])rove  a  custom 
among  attorneys  to  take  a  full  and 
coni|ilrte  control  over  the  business  of 
fi)r<'ign  clients,  and  to  exercise  a  dis- 


cretionaiy  power  in  its  settlement  in 
violation  of  the  principles  of  law, 
or  contrary  to  the  interests  of  such 
clients. 

19  See  supra,  §  215. 

20  Moulton  r.  Bowker,  115  Mass. 
36,  15  Am.  Rep.  72;  Anglo-American 
Land,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Dyer,  181  Mass. 
593,  64  N.  E.  416,  92  Am.  St.  Rep. 
437;  Riley  v.  Boston  El.  R.  Co.,  195 
:Mass.  318,  81  N.  E.  197;  Brewer  V. 
Casey,  196  Mass.  384,  82  N.  E.  45. 

1  Langdon  v.  Potter,  13  Mass.  319. 
See  also   infra,   §   219. 

2  Lewis  V.  Gamage,  1  Pick.  (Mass.) 
347.     See  also  infra,  §  220. 

3Dalton  r.  Wejt  End  St.  R.  Co., 
159  Mass.  221,  34  N.  E.  261,  38  Am. 
St.  Rep.  410. 

4  New  York,  X.  IL  &  H.  R.  Co.  i: 
Martin,  158  Mass.  313,  33  N.  E.  578. 

6  Xew  York,  etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Martin, 
158  Mass.  313,  33  N.  E.  578. 


I 


§    217]  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.  389 

On  the  other  hand,  in  recognizing  the  validity  of  a  settlement 
made  under  express  authority,^  it  has  been  held  that  certain 
restrictions  placed  upon  the  attorney's  powers  in  this  respect,  will 
not  bind  an  adverse  party  who  was  not  aware  of  theraJ  So,  an 
attorney  may,  before  judgment,  release  an  attachment,'  and  gen- 
erally his  authority  extends  to  all  acts,  in  or  out  of  court,  neces- 
sary or  incidental  to  the  prosecution  and  management  of  a  suit, 
which  affect  the  remedy  only  and  not  the  cause  of  action.^ 

In  New  Hampshire,  in  the  absence  of  any  limitation  of  the  at- 
torney's authority  known,  or  which  by  reasonable  inquiry  might 
be  known,  to  the  opposite  party,  an  attorney  may  by  oral  or  writ- 
ten agreement  entered  on  the  record,  made  under  an  order  of 
court,  and  executed  by  the  adversary  in  good  faith,  bind  his  client 
to  a  final  disposition  of  the  cause.  The  fact  that  the  agreement 
and  order  of  court  thereon  effect  a  compromise  of  the  client's  cause 
of  action  is  an  immaterial  circumstance.^" 

In  South  Carolina  an  agreement  of  compromise  made  in  o]ien 
court  is  binding  on  the  client;  ^^  and  an  agreement  made  by  the 
attorney  during  the  progress  of  the  case  upon  a  hearing  before 
a  master,  will  be  regarded  as  having  been  made  in  open  court. ^^ 
One  of  the  principal  reasons  given  for  upholding  such  com- 
promises is  because  the  trial  frequently  develops  a  state  of  facts 
quite  different  from  that  anticipated,  and  the  attorney  is  com- 
pelled to  act  for  the  best  interests  of  his  client,  without  the  oppor- 

6  Doon  V.  Donaher,  1]3  Mass.  151.  on  the  record,  made  under  an  order 
See  also  infra,  §§  225,  226.  of  court,  and  executed  by  the  adver- 

7  Peru  Steel,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Whipple  sary  in  good  faith,  bind  his  client  to 
File,   etc.,    Mfg.   Co.,    109   Mass.   464.  a  final  disposition  of  the  cause.     The 

Similar  rulings  have  been  made  in  fact  that  the  agreement  and  order  of 

other   jurisdictions,   see   infra,   §    225.  court  thereon  effect  a  compromise  of 

8  Moulton  V.  Bowker,  115  Mass.  36,  the  client's  cause  of  action  is  an  im- 
15   Am.   Rep.   72.  material    circumstance. 

9  Moulton  V.  Bowker,  115  Mass.  36,  10  Christie  v.  Sawyer,  44  N.  H.  298; 
15  Am.  Eep.   72.  Beliveau    v.    Amoskeag   Mfg.    Co.,    68 

In  New  Hampshire,  in  the  absence  N.   H.   225,   40  Atl.   734,   73   Am.   St. 

of  any  limitation  of  the  attorney's  au-  Rep.   577,   44   L.R.A.   167. 
thority   known,   or   which   by   reason-  H  Ex  p.  Jones,  47  S.  C.  393,  25  S. 

able  inquiry  might  be  known,  to  the  E.   285. 

opposite  party,   an   attorney   may  by  12  Dixon  V.  Floyd,  73  S.  C.  202,  53 

oral    or    written    agreement    entered  S.  E.  167- 


390 


AUTilOKITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.    [§§    218,  210 


tuuitj  for  consultation  which  would  be  afforded  him  on  other  oc- 
casions.^' But  with  respect  to  compromises  not  made  during  the 
trial,  the  general  rule  that  an  attorney  has  no  implied  power  to 
compromise  has  been  applied.^*  It  has  also  been  held  that  lie 
cannot  accept,  as  satisfaction,  anything  but  money.^^ 

§  218.  In  Emergencies. — In  extraordinary  cases,  where 
delay  might  prove  injurious,  and  there  is  no  opportunit}*  for  com- 
munication between  an  attorney  and  his  client,  the  attorney  may 
compromise  a  claim  without  special  authority. ^^  The  necessity 
creates  the  authority,  and  the  position  of  the  attorney  demands 
that  the  authority  be  exercised  for  the  client's  good ;  "  but  if  he 
has  time  to  communicate  the  situation  to  the  client  without  hazard- 
ing a  loss,  he  must  do  so.^' 

§  219.  Acceptance  of  Payment  Otherwise  than  in  Money. 

- —  The  principle  that  an  attorney  cannot,  without  authority  from 


13  Dixon  r.  Floyd.  73  S.  C.  202,  53 
S.  E.  167.    See  also  infra,  §  23  8. 

i^Gilliland  r.  Gasque,  6  S.  C.  406; 
Armstrong  v.  Hurst,  39  S.  C.  498,  18 
S.  E.  150;  Hewitt  v.  Darlington  Phos- 
phate Co.,  43  S.  C.  5,  20  S.  E.  804. 
See  also  the  general  rule,  supra,  § 
215. 

15  Public  Accountant  Com'rs.  v. 
Rose,  1  Desaus.  (S.  C.)  461;  Treas- 
urers V.  McDowell,  1  Hill  L.  (S.  C.) 
184,  26  Am.  Dec.  166.  See  also  infra, 
§   219. 

16  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bu- 
chanan, 100  Ind.  63;  Gibson  t'.  Nelson, 
in  Minn.  183,  126  N.  W.  731.  137 
Am.  St.  Kep.  .549,  31  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
523.  See  also  Dolan  /;.  Van  Doniark, 
35  Kan.  304,  10  Pac.  848;  Rice  r. 
Wilkins,  21  Me.  558;  North  White- 
hall Tp.  r.  Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105, 
45  Am.  ]^■I).  361  ;  Brockley  V.  Brock 
ley,    122    I'a.   St.    1,    15   Atl.   646. 

I'lnioii  Mut.  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bu 
charian,    lUO   Irid.  63. 


Where  a  debt  is  placed  in  the  hands 
of  attorneys  for  collection,  and  the 
clients  are  nonresidents,  "they  must 
be  presumed  to  have  had  authority 
to  superintend  the  collection  of  the 
judgment  and  to  make  such  arrange- 
ments with  the  debtors,  or  any  of 
them,  as  they  might  deem  advanta- 
geous to  their  clients."  Glass  v. 
Thompson,  9  B.  Mon.    (Ky.)    237. 

In  Bates  v.  Bates,  66  Minn.  131, 
68  N.  W.  845,  the  refusal  to  set  aside 
a  judgment  for  the  plaintiff  entered 
on  the  agreement  of  the  defendant's 
counsel  was  held  not  to  have  been  er- 
roneous, where  it  apj>eared  tliat  the 
defendant  resided  in  another  state, 
and  at  the  time  when  the  case  was 
coming  on  for  trial,  of  which  fact  he 
was  probably  aware,  was  absent  from 
his  home  traveling,  so  that  he  did  not 
receive  the  letters  sent  him  by  his 
coniisel. 

18  I'lcpp  r.  Wiles,  3  Ind.  App.  167, 
29  N.   E.  441. 


§  219] 


AUTHORITY    TO    COM  l'i;(  ).\1  ISK    Olt     REI.KASK 


!91 


his  client,  compromise  a  claim  or  cause  of  action,"  effectively 
prohibits  the  acceptance  by  the  attorney  of  payment  otherwise 
than  in  money  in  satisfaction  of  his  client's  claims.^"     He  may, 


19  See  supra,   §   215. 

20  United  States. — Leslier  v.  Radel, 
170  Fed.  723. 

Alabama. — GuUett  v.  Lewis,  3  Stew. 
23;  Kirk  v.  Glover,  5  Stew.  &  P.  340; 
West  V.  Ball,  12  Ala,  340;  Cliapman 
V.  Cowles,  41  Ala.  103,  91  Am.  Dec. 
508;  Henderson  r.  Planters'  &  Mer- 
chants' Bank,  59  So.   493. 

Arkansas. — Walker  v.  Scott,  13 
Ark.  644;  Moore  v.  Murrell,  56  Ark. 
375,   19   S.   W.   973. 

Colorado. — Black  v.  Drake,  2  Colo. 
330;  McMurray  c.  I\Iarsh,  12  Colo. 
App.   95,  54  Pac.   852. 

Georgia.— Jeter  v.  Haviland,  24 
Ga.  252;  Mclntyre  v.  Meldrim,  63 
Ga.  58;  Kaiser  v.  Hancock,  100  Ga. 
217,  32  S.  E.  123;  Bell  V.  Kwilecki, 
11  Ga.  App.  9,  74  S.  E.  444. 

Illinois. — Xolan  v.  Jackson,  16  111. 
272 ;  Trumbull  v.  Xicholson,  27  111. 
149;  Lochenmeyer  v.  Fogarty,  112 
III.  572;  McClintock  v.  Helljerg.  168 
111.  384,  48  N.  E.  145;  Danzisxer  r. 
Pittsfield  Shoe  Co.,  204  111.  145,  68 
N.  E.  534,  107  111.  App.  47. 

Indiana. — ^IcCormick  r.  Walter  A. 
Wood  Mowing,  etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  72 
Ind.  518. 

Iowa. — McCarver  v.  Nealey,  1  G. 
Greene  360;  Drain  v.  Doggett,  41  la. 
682;  Bigler  c.  Toy,  68  la.  687,  28  N. 
W.  17. 

Kansas. — Herriman  v.  Shomon.  24 
Kan.  387,  36  Am.  Rep.  261. 

Kentucly. — Heath  v.  Com.,  129  Ky. 
835,  113  S.  W.  69;  O'Reiley  v.  Call, 
7  Ky.  L.  Rep.  516. 

Louisiana. — Woodrow  v.  Hennen,  6 
Mart.   (N.  S.)   156;  Perkins  v.  Grant, 


2  La.  Ann.  328;  Phelps  v.  Preston, 
9  La.  Ann.  488;  Ralley  r.  Bagley,  19 
La.  Ann.  172;  Garthwalte  c.  VVentz, 
19  La.  Ann.  196 ;  Davis  v.  Lee,  20 
La.  Ann.  248. 

Maine. — Lord  v.  Burbank,  18  Me. 
178.  Compare  Fogg  v.  Sanborn,  48 
Me.  432,  decided  under  the  act  of 
1851  (c.  213,  §  1,  continued  in  the 
revision  of  1857.  c.  82,  §  44). 

Maryland. — Maddux  r.  Bevan,  39 
Md.  485:  Hamburger  v.  Paul,  51  Md. 
219;  Fritchey  v.  Bosley,  56  Md.  94; 
Kent   V.  Ricards,  3  Md.  Ch.  392. 

Michigan. — Pitkin  v.  Harris,  69 
Mich.  133,  37  X.  W.  61. 

Mississippi. — Clark  v.  Kingsland,  1 
Smed.  &  M.  248;  Keller  v.  Scott,  2 
Smed.  &  M.  81 ;  Gasquet  v.  Warren, 
2  Smed.  &  M.  514;  Gargin  v.  Lowry, 
7  Smed.  &  M.  24;  Mangum  v.  Ball, 
43   Miss.  288,  5   Am.   Rep.  488. 

Missouri. — Walden  v.  Bolton,  55 
Mo.  405;  Vanderline  v.  Smith,  18 
Mo.    App.   55. 

Xebrasla.Stoll  v.  Sheldon,  13 
Xeb.  207,  13  X.  W.  201;  Hamrick  r. 
Combs,  14  Xeb.  381,  15  X.  W.  731  ; 
Smith  r.  Jones,  47  Xeb.  108,  66  N. 
W.  19,  53  Am.  St.  Rep.  519;  Cram 
r.  Sickel,  51  Xeb.  828,  71  X.  W.  724, 
66  Am.  St.  Rep.  478. 

IVeiD  York. — Lewis  v.  Woodruff,  15 
How.  Pr.  539;  Finlay  V.  Hey  ward,  35 
Misc.  266,  71  X.  Y.  S.  779,  reversing 
34  Misc.  818,  69  X.  Y.  S.  648;  Wood- 
ford r.  Rasbach,  6  Civ.  Pro.  315,  ap- 
peal dismissed  99  X.  Y.  659.  Com- 
pare Livingston  r.  Radcliff,  6  Barb. 
201,  wherein  it  was  held  that  under 
a  general  authority  to  collect  a  note 


392 


AUTliOlUTY    TO    COMrRO:snSE    oil    RELEASE. 


[§  219 


under  his  general  authority,  refuse  to  accept  anything  in  pay- 
ment of  his  client's  demand  except  legal  tender ;  ^  thus  he  need  not 
accept  current  bank  notes  which  are  not  legal  tender,'^  a  custom  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding.^     He  cannot  accept  land  or  other 


an  attorney  was  authorized  to  re- 
ceive a  payment  of  part  in  money, 
and  the  residue  in  a  note  for  two  or 
three  days  of  a  person  of  undoubted 
responsibility. 

'North  Carolina. — Moye  v.  Cogdell, 
69  N.  C.  93. 

Oregon. — Barr  v.  Rader,  31  Ore. 
225,  49  Pac.  962. 

Pennsylvania. — Huston  v.  Mitchell, 
14  Serg.  &  R.  307,  16  Am.  Dec.  506 
Chambers    v.    Miller,    7    Watts    63 
Stackhouse  v.  O'Hara,  14  Pa.  St.  88 
Whitesell   v.    Peck,   165   Pa.   St.   571, 
30  Atl.   933;    Kissick   V.   Hunter,   184 
Pa.  St.  174,  39  Atl.  83. 

South  Dakota. — Pioneer  Press  Co. 
V.  Gossage,  13  S.  D.  624,  84  N.  W. 
195. 

Tennessee. — Kenny  i'.  Hazeltine,  6 
Humph.  63;  Baldwin  v.  Merrill,  8 
Humph.  139;  Glass  v.  Davidson,  1 
Baxt.  47;  Davis  V.  Home  Ins.  Co.  155 
S.   W.   131. 

Texas. — Wright  v.  Daily,  26  Tex. 
730;  Portis  v.  Ennis,  27  Tex.  574; 
Bradford  v.  Arnold,  33  Tex.  412. 

Virginia. — Smock  v.  Dade,  5  Rand. 
639,  16  Am.  Dec.  780;  Wilkinson  v. 
Holloway,  7  Leigh  277. 

West  Virginia. — Harper  v.  Harvey, 
4  W.  Va.  539;  Wiley  v.  Mahood,  10 
W.  Va.  20(;;  Kent  r.  rhupiiian,  18  W. 
Va.  485. 

Wiscotisin. — Kelly  r.  Wriglit,  05 
Wis.  236,  26  X.   W.   610. 

1  Glass  V.  Davidson,  1  liaxt. 
(Tenn.)  47.  Sec  also  i'attiTson  r. 
Childfl,  9  G;i.  .Apj).  046,  72  S.  E.  45. 

It    was    lirhl    in    sonic    early    cases 


that  an  attorney  had  no  authority  to 
receive  the  depreciated  paper  cur- 
rency of  the  Confederacy  in  payment 
of  his  client's  claim.  Chapman  v. 
Cowles,  41  Ala.  103,  91  Am.  Dec. 
508;  Railey  v.  Bagley,  19  La.  Ann. 
172;  Garthwaite  v.  Wentz,  19  La. 
Ann.  196;  Davis  V.  Lee,  20  La.  Ann. 
248;  Clark  V.  Thomas,  4  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)  419;  Harper  r.  Harvey,  4 
W.  Va.  539. 

2  West  V.  Ball,  12  Ala.  240;  Trum- 
bull V.  Nicholson,  27  111.  149;  Lord 
V.  Burbank,  18  Me.  178;  Glass  v. 
Davidson,  1   Baxt.    (Tenn.)    47. 

3  A  custom  among  attorneys  to  ac- 
cept payment  in  the  depreciated  bills 
of  a  state  bank  is  invalid.  West  v. 
Ball,   12   Ala.  340. 

In  Lord  v.  Burbank,  18  Me.  178,  the 
court  said:  "However  common  it 
may  be  for  persons  in  receiving  pay- 
ments to  waive  their  strict  rights, 
and  to  make  use  of  a  paper  cur- 
rency, our  laws  can  recognize  no  such 
usage  as  binding  upon  any  person ; 
and  when  anyone  insists  upon  his 
legal  right  to  receive  gold  or  silver 
only  in  payment,  the  law  will  uphold 
him  in  the  exercise  of  that  right,  al- 
though it  may  appear  to  be  an  un- 
expected exercise  of  it  and  not  in 
conformity  to  the  acciistomed  course 
of  transacting  business  between  par- 
tics  in  such  relations.  The  defendant 
may  have  had  a  well-grounded  ex- 
pectation that  the  common  paper  cur- 
rency only  would  be  rc(|uired  of  him; 
l)iit  if  he  would  liave  protected  liim- 
self  against   the   claim   for  specie,   he 


§    219]  AUTJIOKITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OK    RELEASE. 


393 


property,*  or  notes,^  checks,^  drafts,'  bonds,*  coimty  warrants,® 
certificates  of  indebtedness,^"  mortgages, ^^  bills  of  sale,^^  or  an 
assignment  of  a  judginent.^^  Nor  can  he,  in  lien  of  his  client's 
demand,  snbstitnte  his  own  indebtedness,'^*  or  the  indebtedness  of 
another/^  even  thongli  it  is  in  the  form  of  a  note,  bond,  or  other 


should  have  secured  in  the  receipt 
which  he  gave  for  the  demand  a  right 
to  receive  and  pay  it  in  the  usual 
paper  currency." 

4  Black  17.  Drake,  2  Colo.  330 ;  Pit- 
kin V.  Harris,  69  Mich.  133,  37  N. 
W.  61;  Hoopes  v.  Burnett,  26  Miss. 
428;  Walden  v.  Bolton,  55  Mo.  405; 
Huston  V.  Mitchell,  14  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  307,  16  Am.  Dec.  506;  Stack- 
house  V.  O'Hara,  14  Pa.  St.  88;  Gray 
V.  Howell,  205  Pa.  St.  211,  54  Atl. 
774. 

Contra  in  England. — In  comprom- 
ising, the  attorney  may  accept  goods 
instead  of  money  in  satisfaction  of 
his  client's  claim.  Prestwich  v.  Poley, 
18  C.  B.  N.  S.  806,  114  E.  C.  L.  806, 
34  L.  J.  C.  PI.  189,  11  Jur.  N.  S. 
583,  12  L.  T.  N.  S.  390,  13  W.  R.  753. 

5  Jeter  v.  Haviland,  24  Ga.  252; 
Lochennieyer  v.  Fogarty,  112  111.  572; 
Reinhart  Grocery  Co.  v.  Powell,  158 
Mo.  App.  458,  138  S.  W.  909;  Finlay 
V.  Heyward,  35  Misc.  266,  71  N.  Y. 
S.  779,  reserving  34  Misc.  818,  69  N. 
Y.  S.  648;  Heyman  v.  Beringer,  1 
Abb.  N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  315. 

Outstanding  Note  of  Client. — An 
attorney  has  no  right,  without  ex- 
press authority,  to  accept  as  part 
payment  outstanding  notes  of  his 
client  held  by  defendant;  and  where 
he  does,  and  satisfies  the  judgment, 
the  satisfaction  will  to  that  extent 
be  set  aside  on  plaintiff's  motion  and 
on  return  of  such  notes.  Lesher  v. 
Radel,  170  Fed.  723. 


6  Chatham  Nat.  Bank  v.  Hoch- 
stadter,   27   Alb.   L.  J.    (X.   Y.)    133. 

7  Drain  r.  Doggett,  41  Iowa  682; 
Moye  V.  Cogdell,  69  N.  C.  93;  Portis 
V.  Ennis,  27  Tex.  574. 

8  Wiley  V.  Mahood,  10  W.  Va.  206. 

9  Herriman  v.  Shomon,  24  Kan. 
387,   36   Am.   Rep.   261. 

lOBarr  v.  Rader,  31  Ore.  225,  49 
Pac.  962. 

11  Green  well  V.  Roberts,  7  La.  63. 

l2Hartman  Steel  Co.  v.  Hoag,  104 
Iowa  269,  73  N.  W.  611. 

13  Clark  V.  Kingsland,  1  Smedes  & 
M.  (Miss.)  248;  Cake  v.  Olmstead,  1 
Am.  L.  J.  N.  S.    (Pa.)    169. 

14  United  States. — Kingston  r.  Kin- 
caid,  1  Wash.  454,  14  Fed.  Cas.  Xo. 
7,822. 

Alabama. — Gullett  v.  Lewis,  3 
Stew.  23;  Craig  v.  Ely,  5  Stew.  &  P. 
354;   Cost  V.  Genette,  1  Port.  212. 

Iowa. — McCarver  v.  Xealey,  1  G. 
Greene   360. 

Mississippi. — Wenans  v.  Lindsey,  1 
How.  577;  Keller  v.  Scott,  2  Smedes 

6  M.  81. 

Missouri. — Vanderline  V.  Smith,  18 
Mo.  App.  55. 

Nebraska. — Hamrick  v.  Combs,  14 
Xeb.  381,   15  X.  W.  731. 

North  Carolina. — Child  v.  Dwight, 
21  X.  C.  171. 

Pennsylvania. — Chambers  v.  Miller, 

7  Watts  63. 

Virginia. — Wilkinson  r.  Holloway, 
7  Leigh  277. 

iSHolliday  r.  Thomas,  90  Ind.  398; 
Dupre  c.  Splane,  16  La.  51;   Barr  r. 


591 


AUTHOKITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE,  [§    219 


seciirity.^^  But  it  seems  that  an  attorney,  having  in  his  hands 
claims  for  collection,  will,  when  it  is  necessary  to  secure  such  col- 
lection, be  presumed  to  have  authority  to  take  collateral  security 
therefor  in  his  own  name."  If,  however,  an  attorney  does  accept 
payment,  other  than  money,  and  actually  collects  money  thereon, 
the  sum  he  receives  will  operate  pro  tanto  in  extinguishment  of 
the  debt,  even  though  he  has  not  paid  it  to  his  client.''^  Of  money 
so  received  and  paid  to  the  client  there  can,  of  course,  be  no  ques- 


Rader,  31  Ore.  225,  49  Pac.  962; 
Kenny  v.  Hazeltine,  6  Hnmph. 
(Tenn.)  62;  Wiley  r.  Mahood,  10  W. 
Va.  206. 

IBArAaMsas.— Walker  v.  Scott,  13 
Ark.  644. 

Colorado. — Black  v.  Drake,  2  Colo. 
330. 

Georgia. — Jeter  V.  Haviland  24 
Ga.  2.52. 

Illinois. — Loclienmeyer  v.  Fogarty. 
112   111.   572. 

Indianu. — Miller  V.  Edmonston,  8 
Blaekf.  291 ;  Jones  v.  Hansom,  3  Ind. 
327. 

Massachusetts. — Langdon  v.  Potter, 
13   Mass.  320. 

Mississippi. — Fitch  r.  Scott.  3  How. 
314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86;  Garvin  r.  Lowry, 
7  Smedes  &  M.  24. 

Missouri. — Hoiix  V.  Russell,  10  ^lo. 
246. 

Loui.nana. — Xolan  v.  Rogers,  4 
Mart.  X.  S.  145;  Ilicky  r.  Sliarp.  4 
La.  335. 

New  York. — Finlay  r.  Heyward,  35 
Misc.  266,  71  N.  Y.  S.  779,  reversing 
34  Misc.  818,  69  N.  Y.   S.  ()4S. 

South  Carolina. — Taiikcrslcy  r.  An- 
derson,  4    De-saus.   44. 

Tennessee. — Kenny  r.  Ila/.cltiiir,  ti 
Humph.  63;  Glass  /■.  I)avi(l.s.)ii,  1 
Baxt.  47. 

Texas. — See  Hradfoid  r.  Aiiiulil,  33 


Tex.  412;  Scott  v.  Atchison,  38  Tex. 
384. 

Yermont. — Carter  v.  Talcott,  10 
Vt.  471. 

Virginia. — Smith  r.  Lamberts,  7 
Grat.  138;  Wilkinson  v.  Holloway, 
7  Leigh  277;  Smock  r.  Dade,  5  Rand. 
639,   16  Am.  Dec.   780. 

West  Virginia. — Wiley  r.  ]Mal!Ood, 
10  W.  Va.  206;  Kent  r.  Chapman,  IS 
W.   Va.   485. 

Wi.sconsin. — Kelly  v.  Wright,  65 
Wis.  236,  26  N.  W.  610. 

I'Dolan  V.  Van  Demark,  35  Kan. 
304,  10  Pac.  848. 

18  Black  r.  Drake,  2  Colo.  330;  Har- 
bach  r.  Colvin,  73  la.  638,  35  N.  W. 
663;  Glass  r.  Davidson,  1  Baxt. 
(Tenn.)  47;  Smith  r.  Lamberts,  7 
Grat.  (Va.)  138;  Smock  v.  Dade.  5 
Rand.  (Va.)  639,  16  Am.  Dec.  780; 
Wiley  r.  Mahood,  10  W.  Va.  206. 

Contra. — In  Kenny  r.  Hazeltine,  6 
Hnmj)]i.  ('I'enn.)  62.  it  was  held  that 
the  reception  of  notes  or  evidences 
of  debt  by  an  attorney  at  law  in  dis- 
charge of  a  claim  in  his  hands  for 
collection  was  not  a  payment,  and 
that  when  the  money  was  collected 
on  such  claims  it  remained  in  the 
liaiids  of  tlie  attorney  at  the  risk  of 
the  ilchtoi-  until  it  was  ajjpropiMated 
or  apidicd  to  the  satisfaction  of  tiie 
chiini.  Sfc  also  Price  r.  U'hite,  70 
(;a.    381. 


220] 


AUTHORITY    TO    COMPKOMISR    OR    RELEASE. 


395 


tion.^^  On  learning-  of  his  attorney's  acceptance  of  something 
other  than  money,  the  client  may  eithei-  proceed  against  the 
attorney  individually,  thereby  ratifying  the  payment,  or  he  may 
proceed  against  the  debtor,  as  if  no  payment  had  been  made.^" 
An  attorney  may,  of  course,  be  expressly  authorized  to  accept 
payment  in  something  other  than  money  ;^  but  such  authority 
must  be  shown  otherwise  than  by  the  declarations  of  the  attorney,^ 
the  burden  being  on  the  party  seeking  to  avail  himself  of  it.^ 
So,  also,  an  attorney's  unauthorized  act  in  accepting  other  than 
a  money  payment,  may  be  ratified  by  his  client,*  and  his  acquies- 
cence  therein    may   be    sufticient    evidence    of   such    ratification.^ 

§  220.  Accepting  Less  than  Amount  Due.  —  The  general 
rule  also  prohibits  an  attorney  from  receiving,  in  the  absence  of 
authoritj^  from  his  client,  a  sum  less  than  that  actually  due  in 
satisfaction  of  his  client's  claim,^  especially  where  it  has  been 


19  Baldwin  r.  Merrill.  8  Humph. 
(Tenn.)    132. 

20  Chapman  r.  Cowles,  41  Ala.  103, 
91  Am.  Dec.  508;  O'Reiley  c.  Call,  7 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  516;  Smock  v.  Dade,  5 
Rand.    (Va.)    639,   16  Am.  Dec.   780. 

1  Moore  v.  Murrell,  56  Ark.  375,  19 
S.  W.  973.     And  see  infra,  §  226. 

2Stoll  r.  Sheldon,  13  Neb.  207,  13 
N.   W.  201. 

3  Portis  r.  Ennis,  27  Tex.  574. 

4  Wilkinson  r.  Holloway,  7  Leigh 
(Va.)  277;  Wiley  v.  Mahood,  10  W. 
Va.  206.     See  also  supra,  §§  211-214. 

5  Kallander  v.  Neidhold,  112  Mich. 
329,  70  N.  W.  892;  Finlay  V.  Hey- 
ward,  35  Misc.  266,  71  N.  Y.  S.  779, 
34  Misc.  818,  69  N.  Y.  S.  648;  Bene- 
dict r.  Smith,  10  Paige  (N.  Y.)  126; 
Johnson  v.  Gibbons,  27  Grat.  (Va.) 
632 ;  Sawyer  r.  Vermont  Loan  &  1  rust 
Co.,  41  Wash.  524,  84  Pac.  8. 

6  United  States. — Abbe  v.  Rood,  6 
McLean  106,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6;  Bates 
V.  Seabury.  1  Sprague  433,  2  Fed. 
Cas.  No.   1,104. 


Alabama. — Hall  Safe,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Harwell,  88  Ala.  441,  6  So.  750;  Hen- 
derson V.  Planters',  etc.,  Bank.  59 
So.  493. 

Georgia. — Sonnebom  r.  Moore.  105 
Ga.  497,  30  S.  E.  947;  Kaiser  v.  Han- 
cock, 106  Ga.  217,  32  S.  E.  123;  Pat- 
terson i\  Childs,  9  Ga.  App.  646,  72 
S.  E.  45;  Bell  v.  Kwilecki,  11  Ga. 
App.  9,  74  S.  E.  444. 

Delaware. — Wood  v.  Bangs,  2  Peim. 
435,  48   Atl.   189. 

Illinois.  —  Nolan  v.  Jackson,  16 
111.  272;  Vickery  v.  McClennan.  61 
HI.  311;  Miller  V.  Lane,  13  111.  App. 
648;  Schreiber  v.  Straus,  147  111. 
App.  581. 

Indiana. — Repp  r.  Wiles,  3  Ind. 
App.   167,  29  N.  E.  441. 

/otfo.— Bigler  r.  Toy,  68  Iowa  687, 
28  N.  W.  17;  Martin  V.  Capital  Ins. 
Co.,  85  Iowa  643,  52  N.  W.  534;  Cot- 
trell  r.  Wheeler,  89  Iowa  754,  57  N. 
W.   434. 

Kentucky. — Harrow    v.    Farrow,    7 


396 


AUTIIOIUTY    TO    C0:MPK0MISE    OK.    KKLEASE. 


[§   220 


previously  reduced  to  the  form  of  a  judgment,  or  decree.'     The 


B.  Mon.  12G,  45  Am.  Dec.  60;  Cox 
i\  Adelsdorf,  51    S.  W.  616. 

Louisiana. — Pickett  ;;.  Bates,  3  La. 
Ann.  627. 

Maine. — Jewett  v.  Wadleigh,  32 
Me.   110. 

Maryland. — Doub  v.  Barnes,  4  Gill 
1:  Maddux  v.  Bevan,  39  Md.  485; 
Hamburger  v.  Paul,  51  Md.  219;  Real 
Estate  Trust  Co.  v.  Union  Trust  Co., 
102  Md.  41,  61  Atl.  228. 

Massachusetts. — Lewis  v.  Gamage, 
1    Pick.    347. 

Michigan. — Fetz  v.  Leyendecker, 
157  Mich.  355,  122  N.  W.  100. 

Minnesota. — Burgraf  v.  Byrnes,  94 
Minn.  418,  103   X.  W.  215. 

Missouri. — State  v.  Cliflford,  124 
Mo.  492,  28  S.  W.  5;  Vanderline  v. 
Smith,  18  Mo.  App.  55. 

New  Jersey. — Faughnan  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl.  212. 

New  York. — Benedict  v.  Smith,  10 
Paige  126;  Lewis  v.  Woodruff,  15 
How.  Pr.  539;  Beers  V.  Hendrickson, 
45  N.  Y.  665;  De  Mets  v.  Dagron, 
53  X.  Y.  635;  Tito  v.  Seabury,  18 
Misc.  283,  41  N.  Y.  S.  1041;  Hark- 
avy  V.  Zisman,  96  N.  Y.  S.  214. 

Ohio. — Countee  v.  Armstrong,  9 
Ohio  Dec.  (Reprint)  62,  10  Cine.  L. 
Bui.   339. 

Texas. — Peters  v.  Lawson,  66  Tex. 
336,  17  S.  W.  734. 

West  Virginia.  —  Crotty  v.  Eagle, 
35  W.  Va.  151,  13  S.  E.  59. 

Wisconsin. — Kelly  v.  Wright,  65 
Wis.  236,  26  N.  W.  610. 

Partial  Payments. — It  has  been 
held  that  an  attorney  may  receive 
jmrtial  payments  on  any  claim  put 
in  liis  hands  for  collection.  Pickett 
V.  Bates,  3  La.  Ann.  627 ;   Whelan  v. 


Reilly,  61  Mo.  565;  Williams  v. 
Walker,  2  Sandf.  Ch.  (N.  Y.)  325. 
And  see  supra,  §  205. 

7  United  States. — Pierce  v.  Brown, 
8  Biss.  534,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,143. 

Alabama. — Robinson  v.  Murpliy,  69 
Ala.  543. 

Arkansas. — Whiting  v.  Beebe,  12 
Ark.  421. 

Colorado. — McMurray  v.  Marsh,  12 
Colo.  App.  95,  54  Pac.  852. 

Illinois. — People  v.  Cole,  84  111. 
327;  Miller  v.  Lane,  13  111.  App.  048; 
Stocking  V.  Knight,  19  111.  App.  501. 

Indiana. — Jones  v.  Ransom,  3  Ind. 
327. 

Kentucky. — Harrow  v.  Farrow,  7 
B.  Mon.  126,  45  Am.  Dec.  60;  Heath 
V.  Com.,  129  Ky.  835,  113  S.  W.  69; 
Sebastian  v.  Rose,  135  Ky.  197,  122 
S.  W.  120;  Smiley  V.  U.  S.  Building, 
etc.,  Assoc,  62  S.  W.  853,  23  Ky. 
L.  Rep.   250. 

Maine. — Jewett  v.  Wadleigh,  32 
Me.  110;  Wilson  v.  Wadleigh,  36  Me. 
496. 

Maryland. — Maddux  r.  Bevan,  39 
Md.  485;  Rohr  v.  Anderson,  51  Md. 
205. 

Massachusetts. — Lewis  v.  Gamage, 
1   Pick.   347. 

Minnesota. — Johnson  v.  Dun,  75 
Minn.  533,  78  N.  W.  98. 

Mississippi. — Parker  V.  McBee,  61 
Miss.  134;  Rice  V.  Troup,  62  Miss. 
186. 

Missouri. — Roberts  V.  Nelson,  22 
Mo.  App.  28;  Schlemmer  V.  Schlem- 
mer,  107  Mo.  App.  487,  81  S.  W.  636. 

Nebraska. — Hamrich  v.  Combs,  14 
Neb.  381,  15  N.  W.  731;  Smith  v. 
.lones,  47  Neb.  108,  66  N.  W.  19,  53 
Am.  St.  Rep.  519. 


220] 


AUTHOKITY    TO    COMPEOMISE    OR    RELEASE. 


397 


debtor  is  not  injured  by  being  compelled  to  pay  the  whole  debt,^ 
and  it  has  been  held  that  one  who  undertakes  to  settle  with  an 
attorney  for  less  than  the  actual  debt  must,  at  his  peril,  ascertain 
whether  the  attorney  is  authorized  to  make  such  a  compromise,^ 
the  burden  being  upon  him  to  establish  that  fact.^°  A  fraudulent 
receipt  given  by  an  attorney  for  the  whole  amount  due  his  client, 
upon  payment  to  him  of  a  portion  thereof,  is  not  binding.^^  But 
an  attorney  may  assent  to  the  correction  of  a  clerical  error  in  a 
judgment  or  decree,  although  such  a  correction  may  materially 
reduce  the  amount  to  be  recovered  by  his  client.*^  So,  less  than 
the  full  amount  may  be  taken  under  authority  from  the  client ;  ^^ 
or,  if  taken  without  authority,  the  attorney's  act  may  be  ratified. ^^ 
In  the  absence  of  authority  or  ratification,  however,  the  client 


'New  Jersey. — Fauglinan  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl.  212; 
Watts  V.  Frenche,  19  N.  J.  Eq.  407. 

New  York. — Beers  v.  Hendrickson, 
45  N.  Y.  665,  modifying  6  Robt.  53; 
Lowman  v.  Elmira,  C.  &  N.  R.  Co., 
85  Hun  ]88,  32  N.  Y.  S.  579,  af- 
firmed 154  N.  Y.  765,  49  N.  E.  1099; 
Wood  V.  New  York,  44  App.  Div. 
299,  60  N.  Y.  S.  759;  Tito  v.  Sea- 
bury,  18  Misc.  283,  41  N.  Y.  S.  1041 ; 
Woodford  v.  Rasbach,  6  Civ.  Proe. 
315,  appeal  dismissed  99  N.  Y.  G59; 
Quinn  v.  Lloyd,   36  How.   Pr.   378. 

Ohio. — Wilson  v.  Jennings,  3  Ohio 
St.  528;  Boj'le  V.  Beattie,  2  Cine. 
Super.   Ct.   490. 

Pennsylvaoida. — Housenick  V.  Mil- 
ler, 93  Pa.  St.  514;  North  Whitehall 
Tp.  V.  Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105,  45  Am. 
Rep.  361,  12  W.  N.  C.  177;  Phila- 
delphia &  R.  R.  Co.  V.  Christman,  4 
Penny.  271;  Ely  v.  Lamb,  10  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  209;  Schroeder  V.  Gillespie,  2  Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  221. 

Texas. — Peters  v.  Lawson,  66  Tex. 
336,   17   S.  W.  734. 

West  Virginia. — Watt  r.  Brook- 
over,  35  W.  Va.  323,  13  S.  E.  1007, 
29   Am.   St.  Rep.  811. 


8  Lewis  V.  Gamage,  1  Pick,  (^lass.) 
347. 

9  Sonnebom  v.  Moore,  105  Ga.  497, 
30  S.  E.  947;  Kaiser  v.  Hancock,  106 
Ga.   217,   32   S.   E.   123. 

10  Kaiser  v.  Hancock,  106  Ga.  217, 
32    S.    E.   123. 

H  Chalfants  r.  Martin,  25  W.  Va. 
394. 

Under  section  772  of  the  Indiana 
Code  (2  R.  S.  1876,  p.  305),  an  at- 
torney has  no  authority  to  sign  a 
receipt  for  money  which  he  has  not  in 
fact  received,  and  such  a  receipt  is 
not  binding  on  the  client.  McCor- 
mick  V.  Walter  A.  Wood  Mowing, 
etc.,  Mach.  Co.,  72  Ind.  518. 

12  Guay  V.  Andrews,  8  La.  Ann. 
141;  Hill  V.  Bowyer,  18  Gratt.  (Va.) 
364. 

13  Gordon  v.  Coolidge,  1  Sumn.  537, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,606;  Vickery  v. 
McClellan,  61  111.  311;  Hewitt  V. 
Darlington  Phosphate  Co.,  43  S.  C. 
5,  20  S.  E.  804.  And  see  also  infra, 
§§  225,  226. 

14  Reid  ('.  Dickinson,  37  Iowa  56; 
Wyckoff  r.  Bergen,  1  N.  J.  L.  248. 
See  also  supra,  §  211  et  seq. 


398 


AUTIIOKITV     TO    (-0:Mri;OI\[lSE    OR    RELEASE.  [§     220 


may  recover  the  full  amount  of  the  debt/^  less  the  sniii  paid  to 
his  attorney.^®  Since  an  attorney  employed  to  conduct  a  suit  has 
power  to  receive  payments  on  account  of  his  client's  claim,  or, 
after  obtaining  judgments,  to  collect  the  same  and  to  accept  pay- 
ments on  account  thereof,  a  payment  to  him  of  an  amount  less 
than  the  face  of  the  claim  or  judgment,  accepted  by  him  in  full 
satisfaction,  will  be  treated  as  a  payment  on  account,  and  his 
client  will  be  entitled  to  have  the  satisfaction  set  aside  only  on 
condition  that  he  acknowledge  of  record  the  receipt  of  the  amount 
received  by  the  attorney.^'     In   accordance  Avith   this   rule,   the 


15  Jones  r.  Inness,  32  Kan.  177,  4 
Pac.  95;  Burgraf  i\  Byrnes,  94  Minn. 
418,  103  N.  W.  215:  Wood  v.  New 
York,  44  App.  Div.  299,  60  K.  Y.  S. 
759;  North  Wliitehall  Tp.  r.  Keller, 
100  Pa.  St.  105,  45  Am.  Rep.  361,  12 
W.  X.  C.  177;  Pierrepont  v.  Sassee, 
1  White  &  W.  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App. 
(Tex.)    §   1295. 

16  United  States. — Pierce  r.  Brown, 
8  Biss.  534,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No.  11,143; 
Bates  V.  Seabury,  1  Sprague  433,  21 
Law  Rep.  666,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,104. 

Colorado. — Black  r.  Drake,  2  Colo. 
330. 

Georfiia. — Kaiser  v.  Hancock,  106 
Ga.  217,  32  S.  E.  123. 

Minnesota. — Davis  v.  Severance,  49 
Minn.  528,  52  N.  W.  140. 

New  Jersey. — Faughnan  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl.  212. 

l^ew  York. — Lowinan  v.  Elinira,  C. 
&  N.  R.  Co.,  85  Hun  188,  32  N.  Y.  S. 
579,  affirmed  in  154  N.  Y.  765,  49  N. 
E.  1099;  Tito  v.  Seabury,  18  Misc.  283, 
41  N.  Y.  S.  1041.  Compare  Wood  v. 
New  York,  44  App.  Div.  299,  60  N.  Y. 
S.  759. 

I'ennsylvonia. — Phihi(lil|ihia,  etc., 
I'.  Co.  r.  Christniaii,  4  I'mny.  271  ; 
.Vorth  Whitehall  Tp.  »;.  Keller,  100  Pa. 
St.  105,  45  Am.  Rep.  361. 

Texas. — Pierr«'pont     v.     Sassee,      1 


White  &  W.  Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  §  1294. 

Vermont. — Brown  v.  Mead,  68  Vt. 
215,  34  Atl.  950. 

\Vcst  Virginia. — Watt  ??.  Brook- 
over,  35  W.  Va.  323,  13  S.  E.  1007,  29 
Am.  St.  Rep.  811. 

In  Illinois,  however,  it  has  been 
held  that  if  the  plaintiff  never  receives 
the  amount  collected  by  his  attorney, 
the  defendant  is  not  entitled,  on  the 
vacation  of  the  entry  of  satisfaction, 
to  credit  for  the  amount  paid  by  him 
to  the  attorney.  Miller  v.  Lane,  13 
111.  App.  648. 

"Wells  V.  Penfield,  70  Minn.  66, 
72  N.  W.  816.  See  also  the  cases 
cited  in  the  preceding  note. 

In  a  proceeding  on  a  judgment 
where  the  defense  is  that  it  has  been 
settled  by  the  payment  to  the  plain- 
tiff's attorney  of  a  smaller  amount 
than  the  face  of  the  judgment,  but  it 
appears  that  the  attorney  had  no  pow- 
er to  make  such  a  compromise,  and 
that  the  plaintiff  refused  to  accept 
the  money  paid  to  his  attorney,  the 
payment  sliould  be  treated  as  a  pay- 
ment on  account,  if  it  appears  tliat 
it  was  made  with  the  understanding 
tliat  it  sliould  be  so  treated  if  the 
))IaiiitifT  was  not  willing  to  accept  it 
in  full  satisfaction.  Rohr  (\  Ander- 
son, 51    Md.  205. 


§  l'21J         autiioijity  to  compromise  or  release. 


399 


debtor  cannot  recover  back  from  the  attorney  the   partial  pay- 
ment." 


§  221.  Effect  of  Unauthorized  Compromise. —  The  mere 
fact  that  a  cause  of  action  was  compromised  by  an  attorney  with- 
out his  client's  consent  does  not  render  such  compromise  void/^ 
but  only  voidable  at  the  election  of  the  client.^"  The  client  may, 
and  usually  does,  ratify  the  action  of  his  attorney;  and,  in  that 
event,  the  compromise  is,  of  course,  as  effective  as  if  the  attorney 
possessed  the  power  to  conclude  it  originally.^  Should  the  client 
see  fit  to  repudiate  his  attorney's  action  he  may,  in  some  juris- 
dictions, proceed  with  the  original  suit,  or  institute  a  new  one, 
as  if  the  compromise  had  never  been  made,^  or  he  may  ask  the 
court  to  set  the  alleged  compromise  aside,  and  reinstate  the  cause 
on  the  record.^  In  such  cases  the  client  should  act  promptly  on 
becoming  informed  of  the  act  of  his  attorney;  otherwise  he  may 


Where  an  attorney  has  recovered 
judgment,  and  under  his  agreement 
witli  his  client  is  entitled  to  a  cer- 
tain fee,  his  agreement  with  the  de- 
fendant to  remit  a  portion  of  the 
judgment  in  cancellation  of  his  own 
indebtedness  to  the  defendant,  will 
be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  the  pay- 
ment to  him  of  the  amount  so  re- 
tained by  the  defendant,  and  his 
client  cannot  recover  tiie  same  from 
the  defendant.  High  i\  Emerson,  23 
AVash.  103,  62  Pac.  455. 

18  Pickett  V.  Bates,  3  La.  Ann.  627. 

19  Williams  v.  Nolan,   58  Tex.   708. 
Demurrer    Admitting    Authority. — 

In  Strattner  v.  Wilmington  City  Elec- 
tric Co.,  3  Penn.  (Del.)  453,  53  Atl. 
436,  a  plea  that  the  plaintiff's  counsel 
agreed  in  writing  witli  the  defendants 
to  accept  a  certain  sum  in  settlement 
of  the  plaintiff's  claim,  was  held  good 
on  general  demurrer,  since  the  de- 
murrer admitted  that  the  person  who 
made  the  agreement  on  the  part  of 
the  plaintiff  was  the  plaintiff's  coun- 


sel and  as  such  had  authority  to  enter 
into  the  agreement. 

20  Heifer  v.  Spunner,  147  111.  App. 
448;  Sebastian  v.  Rose,  135  Ky.  197, 
122  S.  W.  120. 

1  See  siipra,  §§  211-214. 

2  United  States. — Harper  r.  Na- 
tional L.  Ins.  Co.,  56  Fed.  281,  17  U. 
S.  App.  48,  5  C.  C.  A.  505. 

Indiana. — Wakeman  v.  Jones,  1 
Ind.  517. 

Kansas. — Jones  v.  Inness,  32  Kan. 
177,  4  Pac.  95. 

Pennsylvania — North  Whitehall  Tp. 
V.  Keller,  100  Pa.  St.  105,  45  Am.  Pep. 
361. 

Virginia. — Smock  v.  Dade,  5  Rand. 
639,  16  Am.  Dec.  780. 

3  Smith  V.  Dixon,  3  Mete.  (Ky.) 
438;  Dalton  v.  West  End  St.  R.  Co., 
159  Mass.  221,  34  N.  E.  261,  38  Am. 
St.  Rep.  410. 

Where  an  attorney  makes  a  compro- 
mise or  settlement  of  a  cause,  with- 
out any  authority  so  to  do,  and  causes 
an  order  of  dismissal  "as  per  stipula- 


400  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.  [§    222 

be  chargeable  with  laches,  or  his  conduct  may  be  considered  an 
implied  ratification,^  especially  where  the  agreement  to  com- 
promise has  been  followed  by  a  consent  judg-ment.^ 

§  222.  When  Set  Aside.  —  On  a  motion  to  set  aside  an  un- 
authorized compromise,  the  real  question  is  as  to  the  power  and 
authority  of  the  attorney ;  ®  and  where  his  want  of  authority  ap- 
pears to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  the  compromise  will,  as  a 
general  rule,  be  set  aside,'''  due  credit  being  given  for  the  amount 
paid  to  the  attorney  where  the  facts  warrant  it.*  But  notwith- 
standing the  general  rule,  the  courts  are  not  inclined  to  disturb  a 
compromise  which  is  not  so  unreasonable  in  itself  as  to  create  an 
impression  that  the  judgment  of  the  attorney  has  been  imposed 
on,  or  not  fairly  exercised  in  the  case.^  And  it  has  been  held 
that  every  reasonable  presumption  will  be  indulged  in  favor  of 
the  settlement,  especially  after  it  has  been  recognized  by  the 
court,  and  judgment  has  been  rendered  on  the  agreement.^"  Cer- 
tainly, in  such  cases,  very  slight  evidence  of  acquiescence  on  the 
client's  part  will  be  deemed  a  ratification  of  the  attorney's  act 
in  making  the  compromise. ^^    A  compromise  made  by  the  parties' 

tion,"  based  on  such  settlement,  to  be  6  Senn  v.  Joseph,   106  Ala.  454.   17 

entered,  such  order  may  be  set  aside  So.  543. 

and  vacated,  upon  the  application  of  Evidence  that  the  client  could  not 

his    aggrieved    client    promptly    pre-  have  recovered  so  large  an  amount  as 

sented.     Turner   v.   Fleming,    (Okla.)  that  represented   by  the  judgment  is 

]30  Pac.  551.  immaterial    and    irrelevant.     Senn    v. 

4Reid  V.  Dickinson,  37  la.  50;   Se-  Joseph.  106  Ala.  454,  17  So.  543. 
l)astian  r.  Rose,  135  Ky.   197,   122  S.  7  See  the  cases  cited  under  §§  215, 
\V.  120;  Dupre  r.  Splane,  16  La.  51;  221. 
Black  V.  Rogers,  75  Mo.  441;   Bay  v.  8  See  supra,  §  219. 
Trusdell,    92    Mo.    App.    377;    Finlay  9  Holker  IJ.  Parker,  7  Cranch  436,  3 
r.  Heyward,  35  Misc.  266,  71  N.  Y.  S.  U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    396;   Roller  V.  Wool- 
779,  34  Misc.   818,   69  N.  Y.   S.  648;  dridge,  46  Tex.  485;  Williams  v.  No- 
Johnson  r.  Gibbons,  27   Gratt.    (Va.)  Ian,  58  Tex.  708. 
632.     See  also  Fupra,  §  214.  10  Williams  r.   Nolan,  58   Tex.  70S. 

5  Preston  r.  Hill,  50  Cal.  .54,  19  Am.  "  United  f^tates.—Holker  v.  Parker, 

I!. -p.    647;    Smith   v.   Dixon,    3    Mete.  7   Cranch  436,  3  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)    396; 

(Ky.)     438;    Williams    v.    Nolan,    58  Stowe  r.  U.  S.,  19  Wall.  13,  22  U.  S. 

Tex.    708.     See    also   Huston    r.    Mit-  (L.   ed.)    144;    Mayer  v.  Foulkrod,   4 

cliell,  14  S.  &  R.    (Pa.)    307,   16  Am.  Wash.   511,   16   Fed.   Gas.   No.   9,342; 

Dec.  506.  Jeirries  V.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Go.,  110  U. 


§  223J 


AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    Olt    KELE^VSE. 


401 


attorneys  under  a  mistake  of  fact  may  be  rescinded  by  either 
party.^^  But  a  third  person  cannot  question  an  attorney's  au- 
thority to  settle  his  client's  case/'  particularly  one  who  has  been 
benefited  by  it;^*  nor  can  it  be  attacked  collaterally.^* 

§  223.  Rule  in  Canada.  —  While  it  has  been  held  that  as  be- 
tween solicitor  and  client,  the  solicitor  has  power  to  compromise, 
not  only  without  but  contrary  to  the  consent  or  directions  of  the 
client,  so  long  as  the  opponent  or  other  person  dealt  with  has 
no  notice  of  the  limitation  of  the  solicitor's  ostensible  authority/^ 
nevertheless  the  general  trend  of  authority  in  Canada  is  to  the 
effect  that  a  solicitor  cannot  compromise  the  cause  of  action  with- 
out his  client's  consent.^'  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  the  client 
will  not  be  bound  where  his  solicitor  accepts,  in  satisfaction  of  a 


S.  305,  4  S.  Ct.  S,  28  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
156. 

Illinois. — Vickery  v.  McClellan,  61 
111.  311. 

Iowa. — Reid  v.  Dickinson,  37  Iowa 
56.  See  also  Potter  f.  Parsons,  14 
Iowa  286;  Bennett  v.  Phillips,  57 
Iowa  174,  10  N.  \^'.  328. 

Maryland. — White  r.  Davidson,  8 
Md.  169,  63  Am.  Dec.  699. 

Massachusetts. — Peru  Steel,  etc., 
Co.  V.  Whipple  File,  etc.,  Mfg.  Co., 
109  Mass.  464. 

Mississippi. — Levy  v.  Brown,  56 
Miss.  83. 

Rhode  Island. — Whipple  r.  Whit- 
man, 3  3  R.  I.  512,  43  Am.  Rep.  42. 

Texas. — Roller  v.  Wooldridge,  46 
Tex.  485;  Williams  V.  Nolan,  58  Tex. 
708;  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Scott, 
72  Tex.  70,  10  S.  W.  99,  13  Am.  St. 
Rep.  758,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  16. 

Washington. — Livesley  r.  Pier,  11 
W'ash.  268,  39  Pac.  660. 

Wisconsin. — Mallory  i\  Mariner,  15 
Wis.  172. 

12  New  York,  N.  H.  &  H.  R.  Co.  v. 
Martin,  158  Mass.  313,  33  N.  E.  578; 
Attvs.  at  L.  V^ol.  I.— 26. 


Boyle  V.   Beattie,   2   Cine.   Super.   Ct. 
490. 

13  Pond  V.  Lockwood,  8  Ala.  669 ; 
Hirsch  v.  Fleming,  77  Ga.  594,  3  S.  E. 
9;  Sawyer  v.  Vermont  L.  &  T.  Co.,  41 
Wash.  524,  84  Pac.  8. 

14  Filby  V.  Miller,  25  Pa.  St.  264. 

15  In  Biddle  v.  Pierce,  13  Ind.  App. 
239,  41  N.  E.  475,  it  was  held  that 
where  an  attorney  for  a  party  to  an 
action  signed  an  agreement  of  com- 
promise upon  which  judgment  was  en- 
tered, it  must  be  presumed,  in  a  col- 
lateral proceeding,  that  he  had  full 
power  to  bind  his  client  in  an  amica- 
ble settlement  until  the  contrary  was 
made  to  appear;  and  that  if  he  had  no 
authority  to  bind  the  client  by  agree- 
ing to  the  judgment,  it  was  necessary 
for  the  client  to  take  steps  to  have  the 
judgment  set  aside. 

16  Hackett  r.  Bible,  12  Ont.  Pr.  482; 
Vardon  r.  Vardon,  6  Ont.  719. 

17  King  V.  Pinsoneault,  22  L.  C.  Jur. 
58,  6  Rev.  Leg.  703,  44  L.  J.  P.  C.  42, 
L.  R.  6  P.  C.  (Eng.)  245,  32  L.  T.  N. 
S.  174.  23  W.  R.  576.  See  also  Young 
r.   Shore,  2   U.   C.   Q.   B.   0.   S.  348; 


402 


AUTHOEITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE. 


[§   224 


debt,  a  sum  less  than  the  amount  due.^'  And  where  counsel,  act- 
ing under  the  instructions  of  the  plaintiff's  solicitor,  compromised 
the  action  upon  terms  which  the  plaintiff"  had  instructed  the  solic- 
itor not  to  accept,  it  was  held  that  the  planitift"  was  not  bound  by 
the  agreement.^^  So,  a  provision  settlement  by  a  solicitor,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  his  client,  is  not  binding  on  the  client  if 
he  does  not  ratify  it.^" 

§  224.  Rule  in  England.  —  In  England  it  is  well  settled  that 
an  attorney,  whether  barrister  or  solicitor,  has  power  to  bind  his 
client  by  the  compromise  of  a  pending  action,^  even  though  the 
client  subsequently  repudiates  it.^  But  a  solicitor  has  no  au- 
thority to  compromise  before  the  action  is  begun.^     An  attorney 


Brown  v.  Blackwell,  26  U.  C.  C.  P.  43; 
Watt  V.  Clark,  12  Ont.  Pr.  359. 

An  attorney  for  the  plaintiff  has 
no  right  to  do  more  than  discharge 
the  action  in  which  he  is  retained, 
and  has  no  power  to  compromise  an- 
other right  of  action  accruing  to  his 
client  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings 
in  such  action.  Hence,  in  an  action 
against  a  sheriff  for  an  escape,  it  is 
no  defense  that  after  the  escape  the 
sheriff  paid  to  the  plaintiff's  attorney 
in  the  first  suit  the  debt  and  costs  in- 
dorsed on  the  writ  against  the  party 
wlio  escaped  in  full  discharge  of  all 
damage  occasioned  by  the  escape, 
since  the  attorney  liad  no  right  to 
compromise  the  plaintiff's  right  to 
sue  for  the  escape.  Stocking  c.  Cam- 
eron, 6  U.  C.  Q.  B.  0.  S.  475. 

18  Nova  Scotia  IJaiik  r.  Morrow,  17 
X.  Bruns.  343. 

laP.enner   r.   Kdnionds,    1!)   Ont.    Pr. 

20McDoMiii(i  /■.  I'i.id.  \-2.  Out.  I'r. 
213,  reversin;!  U  Ont.  I*r.  -lH). 

iChown  r.  Parrotl,  11  (  .  15.  X.  S. 
74,  lOH  K.  C.  L.  74,  !)  .lur.  X.  S.  1200, 
32  L.  J.  C.  PI.  197,  8  L.  T.  N.  S.  3U1, 


11  W.  R.  608;  Prestwich  v.  Poley,  IS 
C.  B.  X.  S.  806,  114  E.  C.  L.  806,  34 
L.  J.  C.  PI.  189,  11  Jur.  N.  S.  583,  12 
L.  T.  X.  S.  390,  13  W.  R.  753;  In  re 
West  Devon  Great  Consols.  Mine,  38 
Ch.  D.  51,  57  L.  J.  Ch.  850,  58  L.  T. 
N.  S.  61,  36  W.  R.  342;  In  re  Newen, 
[1903]  1  Ch.  812,  [1903]  W.  N.  52; 
Thomas  v.  Harris,  27  L.  J.  Exch.  353; 
Rumsey  i>.  King,  33  L.  T.  N.  S.  728. 
See  also  Thomas  v.  Hewes,  2  C.  &  ]\1. 
519,  4  Tyrw.  335;  Wright  v.  Sorseby, 
2  C.  &  M.  671,  4  Tyrw.  434,  3  L.  J. 
Exch.  207;   Strauss  v.  Francis,  L.  R. 

1  Q.  B.  379,  7  B.  &  S.  365,  12  Jur.  N. 
S.  486,  35  L.  J.  Q.  B.  133,  14  L.  T.  N. 
S.  326,  14  W.  R.  634;  Matthews  r. 
Munster,  20  Q.  B.  D.  141,  57  L.  J.  Q. 
B.  49,  57  L.  T.  N.  S.  922,  36  W.  R. 
178,  52  J.  P.  260. 

'i'lie  foregoing  cases  overrule  Swin- 
fcn  r.  Swinfen,  24  Beav.  549,  27  L.  J. 
Ch.  35.  3  Jur.  X.  S.  1109,  affinned  in 

2  l)c  (;.  &  J.  381,  27  L.  J.  Ch.  491,  4 
Jur.  X.  S.  774.  G  W.  R.  480. 

2  Berry  v.  Mnllcn,  Jr.  R.  5  Eq.  368; 
Brady  v.  Curraii,  Ir.  U.  2  C.  L.  314, 
16  W.  R.  514. 

3  Macaulay  v.  Policy,  [1897]  2  Q.  V.. 


§    224]  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE. 


403 


admitted  to  prosecute  or  defend  represents  his  client  throughout 
the  cause,  but  a  counsel  represents  his  client  only  when  speak- 
ing for  him  in  court.  Hence,  a  communication  to  or  by  the  coun- 
sel for  a  party  out  of  court,  but  respecting  the  proceedings  in  the 
cause,  is  not  binding  upon  him ;  *  and,  even  though  made  in  open 
court,  the  client  will  not  be  bound  where  his  counsel  acted  under 
a  mistake  of  fact.*  A  compromise  entered  into  by  an  attorney 
notwithstanding  his  client's  instructions  to  the  contrary  gives  the 
client  a  right  of  action  for  damages;  and  it  is  immaterial  that 
the  compromise  was  made  under  the  advice  of  counsel  engaged 
by  the  attorney  under  his  retainer.^     But  the  compromise  itself 


]22,  76  L.  T.  N.  S.  643,  45  VV.  R.  681 ; 
Diifiy  V.  Hanson,  16  L.  T.  N.  S.  332. 

4  Richardson  v.  Peto,  1  M.  &  G.  896, 
39  E.  C.  L.  701,  9  Dowl.  73;  Green  v. 
Crockett,  34  L.  J.  Ch.  606,  12  L.  T.  N. 
S.  749,  13  W.  R.  1052 ;  Latuch  v.  Pash- 
erante,  1  Salk.  86;  In  re  Hobler,  8 
Beav.  101  ;  Mole  v.  Smith,  1  Jac.  &  W. 
645;  Holt  v.  Jesse,  3  Ch.  D.  177;  Har- 
vey V.  Croydon  Union  Rural  Sanitary 
Authority,  26  Ch.  D.  249;  Rumsey  v. 
King,  33  L.  T.  N.  S.  728. 

5  Where  counsel  consented  to  an 
agreement  of  compromise  under  a 
misapprehension,  so  that  he  conceded 
more  than  he  intended,  and  the  minds 
of  tlie  parties  to  tlie  agreement  never 
met,  it  was  held  that  neither  he  nor 
his  client  was  bound  by  the  compro- 
mise and  that  tiie  court  would  set  it 
aside.  Hickman  v.  Berens,  [1895]  2 
Ch.  638. 

Wiiere  counsel  in  open  court,  but  in 
the  absence  of  the  client's  solicitor, 
accepted  a  compromise  proposition 
made  by  counsel  for  the  opposite 
party,  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that 
the  party  had  previously  rejected  a 
similar  proposition,  it  was  held  that 
counsel  were  not  apprised  of  the  facts, 
the  knowledge  of  which  was  essential 
in  reference  to  the  question  on  which 


they  were  to  exercise  their  discretion, 
and  that  the  client  was  not  bound  by 
the  agreement.  And  it  was  further 
held  that  he  was  not  bound  by  his 
solicitor's  failure  to  object  immedi- 
ately to  the  settlement,  and  his  delay- 
ing action  for  a  few  days  and  until  the 
client  arrived  in  town.  Furnival  r. 
Bogle,  4  Russ.  142,  6  L.  J.  Ch.  91,  28 
Rev.  Rep.  34. 

6  Fray  i'.  Voules,  1  El.  &  El.  839, 
102  E.  C.  L.  839,  5  Jur.  X.  S.  1253, 
28  L.  J.  Q.  B.  232.  7  W.  R.  446. 

In  an  early  case  relating  to  the  li- 
ability of  an  attorney  to  the  opposite 
party  on  an  agreement  of  compromise, 
the  rule  was  laid  down  that  if  he 
signed  without  authority  from  his 
client  he  was  himself  liable  thereon, 
but  that  if  he  had  authority,  he 
signed  merely  as  agent  or  broker,  and 
was  not  liable.  Johnson  r.  Ogilby,  3 
P.  Wms.  277. 

An  instruction  to  a  solicitor  that, 
failing  an  order  dismissing  the  appli- 
cation of  the  opposite  party,  "you  will 
please  adjourn  the  matter  to  the  judge 
in  London,"  does  not  constitute  an  in- 
struction not  to  compromise.  In  re 
Newen,  [1903]  1  Ch.  812,  [1903]  W. 
N.  52. 


404 


AUTHOKITT    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.  [§    225 


is  not  affected  by  his  client's  previous  prohibition  thereof,  unless 
the  opposite  party  had  notice  of  it,  or  did  not  act  bona  fide.'' 

Compromise  Authorized  by  Client. 

§  225.  Operation  and  Extent  of  Authority.  —  The  client 
may,  and  often  does,  authorize  his  attorney  to  compromise  a  cause 
of  action,  or  other  claim/  and  in  such  cases  the  client  is  bound 
by  the  act  of  the  attorney,  not  only  to  the  extent  of  the  authority 
conferred,®  but  also  to  such  extent  as  the  person  with  whom  he 
deals  has  a  right  to  believe  him  to  be  possessed,^"  although  it  may 
embrace  matters  outside  the  scope  of  the  suit,^^  and  the  client 
cannot  subsequently  shelter  himself  behind  a  restriction  upon  the 
authority  of  the  attorney,  of  which  the  party  dealing  with  him 
had  no  notice,  and  which  was  not  disclosed  at  the  time  of  the 
transaction ;  ^^  and  this  is  true  even  though  the  attorney  intends 


7  Berry  v.  Mullen,  Ir.  R.  5  Eq.  368; 
Brady  v.  Curran,  Ir.  R.  2  C.  L.  314, 
16  W.  R.  514. 

8  Freeman  v.  Brehm,  (Ind.)  30  N. 
E.  712,  31  N.  E.  545;  Albee  v.  Hay- 
den,  25  Minn.  267;  Phillips  v.  Pullen, 
50  N.  J.  L.  439,  14  Atl.  222 ;  Trenton 
St.  R.  Co.  V.  Lawlor,  74  N.  J.  Eq.  828, 
71  Atl.  234,  74  Atl.  668 ;  Peries  v.  Ay- 
cinena,  3  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  64. 

9  United  States. — Jeffries  t'.  Union 
Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.,  1  Fed.  450,  1  Mc- 
Crary  117. 

Arkansas. — Beal  &  Doyle  Dry 
Goods  Co.  v.  Barton,  80  Ark.  326,  !)7 
S.  W.  58. 

Indiana. — Freeman  i".  Brehm,  30  N. 
E.  712,  affirmed  31  N.  E.  545. 

Louisiana. — Phelps  V.  Hodge,  6  La. 
Ann.  524. 

Minnesota. — Albee  v.  Hayden,  25 
Minn.  267. 

Missouri. — Black  v.  Rogers,  75  Mo. 
441. 

A'eio  Jersey. — Phillips  r.  Pullen,  50 
N.  J.  L.  439,  14  Atl.  222. 


A'cio  York. — Carstens  v.  Schmal- 
holz,  16  Daly  26,  8  N.  Y.  S.  529;  Dia- 
mond Soda  Water  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hege- 
man,  74  App.  Div.  430,  77  N.  Y,  S. 
417. 

Rhode  Island. — Whipple  v.  Whit- 
man, 13  R.  I.  512,  43  Am.  Rep.  42. 

Washington. — Livesley  v.  Pier,  11 
Wash.  268,  39  Pac.  660;  High  v.  Em- 
erson, 23  Wash.  103,  62  Pac.  455. 

Canada. — Norquay  v.  Broggio,  2 
West.  L.  Rep.  (Yukon  Terr.)  108. 

10  Freeman  v.  Brehm,  (Ind.)  30  N. 
E.  712,  31  N.  E.  545;  Matter  of 
Heath,  83  la.  215,  48  N.  W.  1037; 
TIiomj)son  r.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co., 
1.34  Mo.  App.  591,  113  S.  W.  1142; 
Diamond  Soda  Water  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Hegeman,  74  App.  Div.  430,  77  N.  Y. 
S.  417;  East  Line,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Scott,  71  Tex.  703,  10  S.  W.  298,  10 
Am.  St.  Rep.  804;  Livesley  v.  Pier, 
11   Wash.  208,  39  Pac.  660. 

11  Carstens  r.  Sclimalliulz,  ]6  Daly 
26,  8  N.  Y.  S.  529. 

12  Peru  Steel  &  Iron  Co.  v.  Whipple 


§    226]  AUTHOEITY    TO    COMPKOMISE    OK    KELEASK. 


405 


to  defraud  his  client,  providing,  of  course,  that  the  other  party 
does  not  participate  in  the  fraud. ^^  Ordinarily,  however,  an  at- 
torney will  be  confined  to  the  terms  of  the  authority  with  which 
he  is  vested,^*  nor  can  such  authority  be  extended  by  his  un- 
authorized statements.^*  An  express  authority  to  compromise  is 
revoked  by  specific  instructions  to  secure  judgment  by  suit;  ^^  but 
revocation  will  be  ineffective  after  a  compromise  has  been  made.^'' 

§  226.  Sufficiency  of  Authority.  —  Sufficient  authority  to 
compromise  a  pending  cause  of  action  may  be  conferred  by  the 
real  party  in  interest.^*  Where  an  attorney  receives  a  claim  for 
collection  from  an  attorney  in  another  state,  and,  after  obtaining 
judgment,  settles  under  authority  given  him  by  such  foreign  at- 
torney, the  latter  acts  as  attorney  in  fact,  and,  therefore,  the  client 
cannot  deny  his  power  to  authorize  the  local  attorney  to  settle." 


File  &  steel  Mfg.  Co.,  109  Mass.  464; 
Black  v.  Rogers,  75  Mo.  441 ;  Kelly  v. 
Chicago  &  A.  R.  Co.,  113  Mo.  App. 
468,  87  S.  W.  583;  Diamond  Soda 
Water  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Hegeman,  74  App. 
Div.  430,  77  N.  Y.  S.  417. 

13  Miller  v.  Dallas  Consol.  Electric 
St.  R.  Co.,   (Tex.)   124  S.  W.  453. 

Compare  Riley  v.  Boston  El.  R.  Co., 
195  Mass.  318,  81  N.  E.  197,  wherein 
a  fraudulent  settlement,  prociu'ed  by 
the  attorney's  forgery,  was  held  to  be 
ineffective. 

14  Lewis  V.  Lewis,  45  Ch.  D.  (Eng.) 
281;  Kidd  V.  Huff,  105  Ga.  209,  31  S. 
E.  430;  Roberts  v.  Rumley,  58  Iowa 
301,  12  N.  W.  323;  Harrow  c.  Farrow, 
7  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  126,  45  Am.  Dec.  60; 
Barton  v.  Hunter,  59  Mo.  App.  610; 
Melcher  v.  Exchange  Bank,  85  Mo. 
362;  Timm  i'.  Timm,  34  Wash.  228.  75 
Pac.  879;  Chilton  v.  Willford,  2  Wis. 
1,  60  Am.  Dec.  399. 

An  attorney's  agreement  with  his 
client  to  accept  land  in  payment  of 
his  fees  for  bringing  an  action  of 
ejectment,  does  not  authorize  him  to 


agree  to  divide  the  land  between  him- 
self and  the  defendant,  Filby  v.  Mil- 
ler, 25  Pa.  St.  264 ;  or  to  confess  a 
judgment  against  the  client,  thereby 
giving  a  lien  upon  land  embracing  the 
client's  homestead,  Adams  V.  Roller, 
35  Tex.  7]1. 

Tlie  general  attorney  for  a  railroad 
company  authorized  by  it  to  settle 
suits  for  personal  injuries  has  been 
held  not  to  have,  as  an  incident  to 
such  authority,  power  to  bind  the 
company  by  an  agreement  to  employ 
an  injured  employee  for  the  rest  of  his 
life.  Nephew  V.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  128  Mich.  599,  87  N.  W.  753,  8 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  784. 

15  Joseph  V.  Piatt,  130  App.  Div. 
478,  114  N".  Y.  S.  1065. 

16  Maxwell  v.  Pate,  (Miss.)  16  So. 
529. 

17  Foot  V.  Smythe,  20  Colo.  App. 
320,  78  Pac.  619. 

18  Whipple  V.  Whitman,  13  R.  J. 
512,  43  Am.  Rep.  42. 

19  Schroeder  v.  Gillespie,  2  Pa.  Dist. 
Ct.  221.     See  also  Thompson  v.  Miss- 


■iOU  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.  [§    226 

So,  au  attorney  holding  an  assignment  of  his  client's  claim  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  him,  without  interference  by  the  client, 
to  settle  and  adjust  conflicting  claims  according  to  his  best  judg- 
ment, having  in  view  the  client's  interest,  is  clothed  with  discretion 
in  the  matter  of  compromising  with  adverse  claimants.^"  Where 
a  client  agrees  in  writing  that  his  attorney  may  compromise  a 
pending  claim,  or  cause  of  action,  and  such  compromise  is  fairly 
and  honestly  effected,  it  will  not  be  set  aside  merely  because  the 
client  did  not  understand  it.^  In  some  cases  there  may  be  an  im- 
]died  right  in  the  attorney  to  effect  a  compromise,  resulting  either 
from  the  character  of  the  claim  or  the  circumstances  connected 
with  it.^  Thus  authority  may  be  predicated  on  the  course  of 
dealing  between  the  attorney  and  his  client,^  And  where  a  com- 
promise of  tax  claims  was  entered  into  by  a  county  attorney  and 
a  city  solicitor,  it  was  presumed  that  those  attorneys  had  authority 
to  act  for  the  county  and  city.*  So  the  employment  of  an  attorney 
to  prosecute  a  suit  for  land,  carries  with  it  authority  to  com- 
promise a  claim  against  a  disseizor  for  mesne  profits  during  the 
pendency  of  the  suit.^  And  it  is  within  the  authority  of  a  judg- 
ment creditor's  attorney  to  discharge  a  claimant  of  property  levied 
upon  from  liability  for  any  damages  assessed,  and  for  the  value  of 
the  use  of  the  property,  in  consideration  of  its  return.®  It  is  well 
settled  that  authority  to  compromise  may  be  implied  from  cir- 
cumstances ;  '  thus  such  authority  may  be  inferred  from  an   in- 

ouri    Pac.  R.   Co..   134  Mo.   App.  501,  3  Jeter  r.  Haviland.  24  Ga.  252. 

113  S.   W.   1142.  4  People  r.  Quick,  92  111.  580. 

20  Jeffries  r.  Mutual  L.  Ins.  Co.,  310  5  Bonney  v.   Morrill,  57    Me.  368. 

r.  S.  305.  4  S.  Ct.  8,  28  L'.  S.  (L.  ed.)  6  Willis  v.  Chowninp;.  90  Tex.  617, 

156,  affirming  1   McCrary  117,  1   Fed.  40  S.  W.  395,  59  Am.  St.  Rep.  842. 

450;    Foot  r.   Smytlie,   20   Colo.   App.  T  California. — Chaffey    v.   Dexter,   4 

320,  78  Pac.  619;  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.  I'ac.  980. 

V.  Kennedy,  70  111.  350.  Kentucky. — Cox  r.  Adelsdorf,  51  S. 

1  Little  r.  Spreadhury,   flOlO]   2  K.  VV.  616,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  421. 

H.   (Kng.)  658,  102  L.  T.  N.  S.  829,  79  .l/ainc— Chapman     V.     Lothrop,    39 

I..  J.   K.    B.   1119,   54  Sol.  J.   618,  26  Me.    431. 

'I'iineH  L.  Rep.  552;   Chamhers  r.  Ma-  Jlfissiftsippi. — Levy     v.     Brown,    56 

son,  5  C.  ]\.  X.  S.  59,  94  V..  ('.  L.  59,  5  Miss.  83. 

Jur.  \.  S.  148,  28  L.  J.  c.  1>|.  10.  Missouri.— Grumley     r.     Wehb.    48 

2North    Wliitehall     I'l..    r.     Keller,  Mo.  562 ;  Bay  f.  Trusdell,  92  Mo.  App. 

100  Pa.  St.  105,  45  .\m.  iJep.  361.  377. 


§    1*26]  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPKOMISE    OR    RELEASE.  407 

struction  to  an  attorney  to  do  '^the  best  lie  can,"  *  from  an  em- 
ployment for  the  purpose  of  effecting  a  settlement,^  or  from  the 
fact  that  the  attorney  was  empowered  to  compromise  other  claims 
or  actions.^"  Where  an  attorney  advised  his  client  that  he  would 
try  to  arrange  a  settlement,  and  an  agreement  to  settle  the  con- 
troversy was  made,  and  the  party  at  no  time  attempted  to  evade 
the  force  thereof  by  any  distinct  claim  that  it  was  unauthorized 
by  him,  the  agreement  was  not  made  without  his  authority,  and 
he  could  not  disregard  it."  But  an  inquiry  by  a  client  as  to  the 
chances  of  getting  a  fifty  per  cent,  cash  settlement,  does  not  au- 
thorize the  attorney  to  accept  such  a  settlement ;  ^^  an  instruction 
to  bring  suit  for  damages  or  to  settle  same  by  compromise,  does 
not  authorize  a  compromise  without  the  client's  consent,  especially 
after  he  has  actually  brought  an  action. ^^  Kor  can  an  attorney's 
authority  to  compromise  be  proved  by  his  own  declarations.^* 
Where  defendant  relies  on  an  alleged  accord  and  satisfaction  en- 
tered into  on  behalf  of  plaintiff  by  her  attorney,  it  is  incumbent 
on  defendant  to  show  that  the  attorney  had  express  authority  to 
make  the  settlement. ■^^  And  should  the  evidence  as  to  the  at- 
torney's authority  present  a  conflict,  its  determination  is  for  the 
jury.^^ 

New  Ycrlc—Dorman  v.  Arkin.   120  72  Tex.   70,  10  S.  W.  99,  13   Am.  St. 

N.  Y.  S.   757.  Rep.  758. 

Texas. — Miller     v.     Dallas    Cousol.  n  Equitable  Trust  Co.  v.  MacLaire, 

Electric  St.  R.  Co.,  104  Tex.  57,  133  77  Misc.  116,  135  N.  Y.  S.  1022. 

S.  W.  866,  reversing  124  S.  W.  453.  12  Cox  r.  Adelsdorf,   (Ky.)  51  S.  W. 

Wisconsin. — Mallory  v.  Mariner,  15  616. 

Wis.   172.  13  Brown  r.  Bunger,  43   S.  W.  714, 

8  Moore  v.  Murrell,  56  Ark.  375,  10  19    Ky.  L.   Rep.    1527. 

S.  W.  973;   Vickery  v.  McClellan.  61  14  Bigler  v.  Toy,  68  la.  687,  28  N. 

111.  311;    Freeman  r.   Brehm,    (Ind. )  W.    17;    Garvin   v.   Lowry,    7   Smedes 

31  N.  E.  545,  affirming  30  N.  E.  712;  &  M.    (Miss.)    24. 

Wishard  r.  Biddle,  64  la.  526,  21  N.  15  Fosha    v.    O'Donnell.     120     Wis. 

W.    15;    Hewitt   V.   Darlington   Phos-  336,  97  N.  W.  924. 

phate  Co.,  43  S.  C.  5,  20  S.  E.  804.  16  United      States.— Humphrey      v. 

9  Turner  v.  Campbell,  59  Ind.  279;  Thorp,  89   Fed.  66. 

Doon    V.    Donaher,    113    Mass.    151;  California. — Chaffey     r.     Dexter,    4 

Phillips  V.  Pullen,  50  N.  J.  L.  439,  14  Pac.  980. 

Atl.   222.  /Hmois.— Strong   v.   Smitli,   98   111. 

10  East  Line,  etc.,  R.   Co.  v.  Scott,  App.  522. 


408 


AUTHORITY  TO  COMPROMISE  OR  RELEASE. 


[§  227 


Release. 

§  227.  Generally.  —  The  rule  discussed  in  tlie  preceding- 
sections,  which  forbids  an  attorney  to  compromise  his  client's 
claims  and  causes  of  action  unless  given  special  permission  to  do 
so  by  the  client,"  necessarily  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  re- 
lease thereof.''^  A  solicitor  has  no  authority,  under  his  retainer, 
to  surrender  any  substantial  right  of  his  client  without  his  con- 


Indiancb. — Freeman  v.  Brehm,  30 
N.  E.  732,  31  K  E.  545. 

Louisiana. — Phelps  v.  Hodge,  6  La. 
Ann.  524;  Phelps  V.  Preston,  9  La. 
Ann.  488. 

Maryland. — Rohr  v.  Anderson,  51 
Md.  205;  Fritchey  v.  Bosley,  56  Md. 
94. 

Massachusetts. — Brewer  r.  Casey, 
190  Mass.  384,  82  N.  E.  45. 

Michigan. — Eaton  v.  Knowles,  61 
Mich.  625,  28  N.  W.  740;  Fotz  V. 
Leyendecker,  157  Mich.  355,  122  N. 
W.  100. 

Minnesota. — Albee  i'.  Ilayden,  25 
Minn.  267. 

Mississippi. — Garvin  V.  Lowry,  7 
Smed.  &  M.  24. 

Missouri. — Willard  V.  A.  Siegel  Gas- 
Fixture  Co.,  47  Mo.  App.  1 ;  Barton 
V.  Hunter,  59  Mo.  App.  610;  Bay  v. 
Trusdell,  92  Mo.  App.  377. 

yew  Jersey. — Terhune  V.  Colton,  10 
X.  J,  Eq.  21;  Phillips  V.  Pullen,  50 
X.  J.   L.  439,   14  Atl.  222. 

New  York. — Woodford  v.  Rasbach, 
G  Civ.  Pro.  315,  appeal  dismissed  99 
X.  Y.  659;  McKechnie  v.  McKechnie, 
3  App.  Div.  91,  39  N.  Y.  S.  402; 
Diamond  Soda  Water  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Hegeman,  74  App.  Div.  430,  77  X.  Y. 
S.  417;  Dorman  v.  Arkin,  120  X.  Y. 
S.  757. 

Tennessee. — Conlcy  v.  Wliittliorne, 
58   S.   W.   380. 

Texas. — East   Lino,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 


Scott,  72  Tex.  70,  10  S.  W.  99,  13 
Am.  St.  Rep.  758,  38  Am.  &  Eng.  R. 
Cas.  16. 

Vermont. — Vail  v.  Conant,  15  Vt. 
314. 

Washington. — High  v.  Emerson,  23 
Wash.  103,  62  Pac.  455;  Collins  v. 
Fidelity  Trust  Co.,  33  Wash.  136,  73 
Pac.  1121;  Erickson  v.  McXeeley,  41 
Wash.  509,  84  Pac.  3. 

Wisconsin. — Mallory  v.  Mariner,  15 
Wis.  172;  Mygatt  V.  Tarbell,  85  Wis. 
457,  55  N.  W.  1031;  Fosha  V.  O'Don- 
nell,  120  Wis.  336,  97  X.  W.  924. 

17  See  supra,  §  215  et  seq. 

18  United  States. — Quesnel  v.  Mussy, 
1  Dall.  449,  1  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  218. 

Kansas. — Sharpe  v.  Williams,  41 
Kan.  56,  20  Pac.  497. 

Kentucky. — Benedict  v.  Wilhoite,  80 
S.  W.  1155. 

Louisiana. — Millaudon  v.  IMcMicken, 
7  Mart.  X.  S.  34. 

Maine. — McLaine  v.  Bachelor,  8 
Greenl.  324;  Jenney  V.  Delesdernier, 
20  Me.  183. 

?^'Cio  York. — Wells  V.  Evans,  20 
Wend.  251;  Barrett  v.  Third  Ave.  R. 
Co.,  45  X.  Y.  628. 

Pennsylvania. — Tompkins  v.  Wood- 
ford, 1  Pa.  St.  156. 

South  Carolina. — Gilliland  V.  Cas- 
que, 6  S.  C.  406;  Armstrong  v.  Hurst, 
39  S.  C.  498,  18  S.  E.  150. 

Tcjras. — Ilickey  v.  Stringer,  3  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  45,  21  S.  W.  716. 


§    227]  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR   RELEASE. 


409 


sent.^^  Thus  an  attorney  who  receives  a  note  for  collection  is  not 
authorized  to  enter  into  an  agreement  which  will  release  the  lia- 
bility of  an  indorser ;  ^°  nor  can  he  release  one  of  two  joint  debtors 
in  consideration  of  the  other  giving  security  for  the  debt.'^  A 
bondholder's  attorney  has  no  authority  as  such  to  waive  payment 
of  interest.^  Nor  can  an  attorney  shift  the  liability  of  the  ad- 
verse party  by  contracting  with  another  to  assume  it.^  Nor  can  he 
release  a  judgment,*  execution,^  or  other  lien,®  excepting  where  he 


Vermont.— Carter  v.  Talcott,  10  Vt. 
47L 

Washington. — Budlong  v.  Budlong, 
31  Wash.  228,  71  Pac.  751. 

Wisconsin. — Kelly  v.  Kelly,  86  Wis. 
170,  56  N.  W.  637. 

19  Dickerson  v.  Hodges,  43  N.  J.  Eq. 
45,  10  Atl.  Ill;  Webster  v.  Stadden, 
14   Wis.  277. 

20  Varnum  v.  Bellamy,  4  McLean 
87,  28  Fed.  Cas.  No.  16,886;  Stoll  v. 
Sheldon,  13  Neb.  207,  13  N.  W.  201; 
East  River  Bank  i;.  Kennedy,  9  Bosw. 
(N.  Y.)  544. 

iCram  v.  Sickel,  51  Neb.  828,  71 
N.  W.  724,  66  Am.  St.  Rep.  478. 

2  Real  Estate  Trust  Co.  v.  Union 
Trust  Co.,  102  Md.  41,  61  Atl.  228. 

3  Cullin-McCurdy  Const.  Co.  v.  Vul- 
can Iron  Works,  93  Ark.  342,  124  S. 
W.  1023. 

4  Georgia. — Phillips  v.  Dobbins,  56 
Ga.  617. 

Kansas. — Rounsaville  v.  Hazen,  33 
Kan.  71,  5  Pac.  422. 

Kentucky. — Harrow  v.  Farrow,  7  B. 
Mon.  126,  45  Am.  Dec.  60;  D.  C. 
Heath  &  Co.  i\  Com.,  129  Ky.  835, 
113  S.  W.  69. 

Louisiana. — Morgan  r.  Their  Cred- 
itors, 19  La.  84. 

Maine. — .Tenney  v.  Delesdernier,  20 
Me.  192;  Wilson  v.  Wadleigh,  36  Me. 
496. 

Maryland. — Fritchey    v.   Bosley,    56 


Md.  94;  Horsey  v.  Chew,  65  Md.  560, 
5  Atl.  466. 

2Vew  York. — Beers  v.  Hendrickson, 
45  N.  Y.  665. 

Ohio. — Wilson  v.  Jennings,  3  Oliio 
St.  528. 

Pennsylvania. — Dollar  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Robb,  4  Brcwst.  106;  Kirk's  Appeal, 
87  Pa.  St.  243,  30  Am.  Rep.  357;  Ely 
V.  Lamb,  10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  209. 

5  Wilson  r.  Wadleigh,  36  Me.  496; 
Banks  v.  Evans,  10  Sraedes  &  M. 
(Miss.)  35,  48  Am.  Dec.  734;  Union 
Bank  of  Tennessee  v.  Govan,  10 
Smedes  &  M.  (Miss.)  333;  Benedict 
t'.  Smith,  10  Paige  (N.  Y.)  126; 
Housenick  v.  Miller,  93  Pa.  St.  514. 

Waiving  Inquisition. — An  attorney 
who  has  been  acting  for  the  defendant 
up  to  judgment  on  which  execution  is 
promptly  issued  is  presumed  to  hav._' 
authority  to  waive  inquisition,  and  if 
the  client  desires  to  disavow  he  must 
do  so  within  a  reasonable  time. 
Where  no  move  to  disavow  or  object 
has  been  made  for  sixteen  years,  the 
presumption  is  conclusive.  Kissick 
V.  Hunter,  184  Pa.  St.  174,  39  Atl.  83. 
Compare  Hadden  v.  Clark,  2  Grant 
Cas.   (Pa.)   107. 

6  Georgia. — Hirsh  &  Co.  v.  Beverly, 
125  Ga.  657,  54  S.  E.  678. 

Maryland. — Doub  v.  Barnes,  1  Md. 
Ch.  127. 
New  York. — Lewis  v.  Duane,  141  N. 


410 


AUTHORITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELEASE.  [§    227 


is  authorized  to  do  so.  In  several  jurisdictions,  however,  the 
satisfaction  of  a  judgment  or  other  lien,  and  the  collection  thereof, 
are  within  the  scope  of  the  authority  of  the  attorney  of  record  in 
the  action  or  proceeding  wherein  they  were  obtained,  and  no 
other  authority  is  needed  for  that  purpose ;  "^  but,  even  then,  the 
release  can  only  be  effective  where  the  full  amount  is  paid  '  in 
moiiey,^  So,  also,  an  attorney  has  no  implied  power  to  release  the 
obligation  of  one  who  is  surety,  to  his  client's  prejudice ;  ^°  nor 
can  he  extend  the  time  of  payment  on  a  note  where  such  exten- 
sion would  have  the  effect  of  releasing  a  surety  from  liability 
thereon,^^  nor  consent  to  a  new  trial,  and  thereby  release  the  sure- 
ties on  an  appeal  bond.^^  An  attorney  has  no  right  to  give  up 
security  for  the  payment  of  his  client's  debt,  without  actual  pay- 
ment or  special  authority. ^^     So,  an  attorney  has  no  implied  au- 


Y.  302,  36  X.  E.  322,  affirming  69  Hun 
28,  23  N.  Y.  S.  433 ;  Van  Kannell  Re- 
volving Door  Co.  V.  Astor,  55  Misc. 
378,  105  N.  Y.  S.  683. 

Ohio. — Wilson  v.  Jennings,  3  Ohio 
St.  528. 

South  Carolina. — Ludden  &  Bates 
Southern  Music  House  v.  Sumter,  45 
S.  C.  186,  22  S.  E.  738,  55  Am.  St. 
Rep.  761. 

Texas. — Engelbach  v.  Simpson,  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  188,  33  S.  W.  596. 

7  See  supra,  §  142,  and  infra,  §  275. 
See  also  O'Neill  r.  Doutliitt,  39  Kan. 
316,  18  Pac.  199  (decided  under  Comp. 
Laws  ]885,  c.  68,  §§  5,  6);  Levy  v. 
Brown,  56  Miss.  83;  Read  v.  French, 
28  N.  Y.  285. 

8  See  supra,  §  220. 

9  See  supra,  §  219. 

10  Kentucky.  —  Harrodsburg  Sav. 
Inst.  V.  Cliinn,  7  Bush  539;  Givens  v. 
I'.riscoe,  3  J.  J.  .Marsh.  532. 

Louisiana. —  lioherts  r.  Smith,  3  La. 
Ann.  205. 

Mis.Hissippi. — I'nioii  I'.aiik  of  Tcnn- 
esHi-p  r.  (Jovan,  10  Smcdcs  &  M.  333. 


Nebraska. — Stoll  r.  Sheldon,  13 
Neb.  207,  13  N.  W.  201. 

Pennsylvania. — Lowry  v.  Clark,  20 
Pa.  Super.  Ct.  357. 

South  Carolina.  —  Armstrong  r. 
Hurst,  39  S.  C.  498,  18  S.  E.  150; 
Ludden,  etc.,  Southern  Music  House  v. 
Sumter,  45  S.  C.  186,  22  S.  E.  738,  55 
Am.  St.  Rep.  761. 

Texas. — Engelbach  r.  Simpson,  12 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  188.  33  S.  W.  596. 

11  Roberts  v.  Smith,  3  La.  Ann.  205. 
Compare  Phillips  v.  Rounds,  33  Me. 

357,  wherein  it  was  held  that  an  at- 
torney, appointed  to  act  for  a  creditor 
at  the  disclosure  of  his  debtor,  who 
has  given  a  relief  bond,  has  authority 
to  extend  the  time  for  such  debtor  to 
make  the  disclosure,  although  such 
extension  may  have  the  effect  to  dis- 
eliarge  the  surety  on  the  bond. 

12  Quinn  v.  Lloyd.  36  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  378,  5  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  281. 

ISTerhune  r.  Colton,  10  N.  J.  Eq. 
21 ;  Beard  r.  Westerman,  32  Oliio  St. 
29;  Tankersly  V.  Anderson,  4  Desaus. 
(S.  C.)   45. 


§    227]  AUTHORITY    TO    COMPKOMISE    OK    KELEASK 


411 


thority  to  release  errors  on  the  record/*  though  he  may  agree  to 
the  correction  of  a  clerical  error.^*  The  attorney  of  record  can- 
not, without  special  authority,  execute  a  valid  release  to  one  who 
is  liable  over  to  his  client,  in  order  to  render  him  a  competent 
witness. ^^  Where  a  debtor  has  been  taken  into  custody  on  an 
execution  against  the  person,  it  has  been  held  that  the  attorney 
for  the  plaintiff  cannot,  without  permission  from  his  client,  re- 
lease the  debtor  from  imprisonment,^'  excepting  where  the  execu- 
tion has  been  issued  for  costs,  as  to  which  the  attorney  has  a  lien.^* 
On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  has  been  held  that  the  plaintiff's 
attorney  has  full  power  to  discharge  a  defendant  from  arrest  upon 
a  capias  ad  satisfaciendum,  issued  by  him,  and  that  the  sheriff 
is  bound  to  receive  and  obey  his  instructions.^^  Of  course,  as  to 
all  these  matters  counsel  may  be  authorized  to  execute  releases,^" 
or,  having  done  so  without  authority,  his  act  may  be  ratified.^ 


14  Forbes  r.  Hamilton,  Ky.  Dec.  89. 
See  also  Hite  v.  Wilson,  2  Hen.  &  M. 
(Va.)   268. 

15  Guay  i\  Andrews,  8  La.  Ann.  141; 
Hill  r.  Bowyer,  18  Grat.  (Va.)  364. 

16  Alabama.— 'QaW  v.  State  Bank,  8 
Ala.  590,  42  Am.  Dec.  649. 

Georgia. — McCurdy  v.  Terry,  33  Ga. 
49. 

Louisiana. — Stocking's  Succession, 
6  La.  Ann.  229;  Weigel's  Succession, 
18  La.  Ann.  49. 

Maine. — York  Bank  v.  Appleton,  17 
Me.  55. 

Masfsachii^etts. — Shores  v.  Caswell, 
13  Mete.  413. 

New  York. — Bowne  v.  Hyde,  6  Barb. 
392;  Murray  r.  House,  11  Johns.  464. 

South  Carolina. — Marshall  v.  Nagel, 
1  Bailey  L.  308. 

HGorham  v.  Gale,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
739,  17  Am.  Dec.  549;  Bowe  v.  Camp- 
bell, 63  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  167,  2  Civ. 
Proc.  232;  Crary  r.  Turner,  6  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)  53;  .Jackson  r.  Bartlett,  8 
Johns.    (N.  Y.)    361;   Kellogg  v.  Gil- 


bert, 10  .Johns.  (X.  Y.)  220,  6  Am. 
Dec.  335;  Simonton  v.  Barrell,  21 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  362;  Treasurers  r.  Mc- 
Dowell, 1  Hill  L.  (S.  C.)  184,  20  Am. 
Dec.  166. 

18  Davis  v.  Bowe,  54  Super  Ct.  520, 
25  N.  Y.  Wkly.  Dig.  455.  affirmed  118 
N.  Y.  55,  23  N.  E.  166. 

19  Scott  V.  Seller,  5  Watts  (Pa.) 
235. 

An  attorney,  who  receives  a  demand 
for  collection  from  a  creditor  at  a  dis- 
tance, without  any  special  instruc- 
tions, has  a  discretionary  power  not  to 
have  the  debtor  committed  on  the  ex- 
ecution, and,  if  he  has  been  com- 
mitted, may  discharge  him  from  the 
commitment,  if  he  acts  as  a  man  of 
common  prudence  would  do,  from  the 
apparent  circumstances  of  the  debtor. 
Hopkins  v.  Willard,  14  Vt.  474. 

20  Wishard  v.  Biddle,  64  Iowa  526, 
21  N.  W.  15;  Fritchey  v.  Bosley,  56 
Md.  94. 

iSee  supra,  §§  211-214. 


412 


AUTIIOKITY    TO    COMPROMISE    OR    RELE.VSE. 


[§     -^-^^ 


§  228.  Release  of  Attached  Property.  —  The  general  rule 
is  that  an  attorney  has  authority  to  release  the  property  of  the 
debtor  from  an  attachment  if  it  appears  to  be  for  the  best  interest 
of  his  client.^  So  an  attorney,  to  whom  a  claim  is  intrusted  for 
collection,  may  authorize  the  sheriff  to  take  a  receipt  for  the  goods 
attached,  and  such  receipt  will  discharge  the  officer  from  liability 
for  not  retaining  possession,'  even  though  the  attorney  in  so  do- 
ing was  negligent.*  And  an  attorney  has  power  to  bind  his  client 
by  the  settlement  of  an  attachment  involving  the  dismissal  of  a 
bill  for  an  injunction,  and  a  release  from  liability  on  the  bond.* 
The  reason  for  allowing  an  attorney  such  liberty  of  action  with 
respect  to  attachments  is  that  such  proceedings,  being  part  of  the 
actual  litigation,  are  within  the  attorney's  exclusive  control.^ 


2  England. — See  Payne  v.  Chute,  1 
Rolle  365 ;  Levi  v.  Abbot,  4  Exch.  58S. 

United  States. — Pierce  r.  Strick- 
land, 2  Story  292,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,147. 

Connecticut. — Monson  v.  Hawley,  30 
Conn.  51,  79  Am.  Dec.  233. 

Iowa. — See  Bennett  ;;.  Phillips,  57 
la.  174,  10  N.  W.  328. 

Maine. — Jenney  v.  Delesdernier,  20 
Me.  183;  Benson  (;.  Carr,  73  Me.  78. 

Massacliusctts. — Moulton  v.  Bowkor, 
115  Mass.  36,  15  Am.  Rep.  75;  Marble 
V.  Jamesville  Mfg.  Co.,  163  Mass.  171, 
39  N.  E.  998. 


Mississippi. — Levy  v.  Brown,  56 
Miss.  83. 

Missouri. — Muir  v.  Orear,  87  Mo. 
App.  38.  But  see  Quarles  v.  Porter, 
12  Mo.  76. 

Tennessee. — See  Rice  v.  O'Keefe,  6 
Heisk.  638. 

3  Jenney  v.  Delesdernier,  20  Me. 
]S3;  Farnham  v.  Gilman,  24  Me.  250. 

4  Jenney  v.  Delesdernier,  20  Me.  183. 

5  Levy  V.  Brown,  56  Miss.  83. 

6  Levy  V.  Brown,  56  Miss.  90.  And 
see  infra,  %  246  et  seq. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

AUTHORITY  TO  APPEAR  FOR  LITIGANTS. 

In  General. 

§  229.  Authority   to  Appear. 

230.  Authority  Presumed. 

231.  Appearance  for  Co-Parties  and  Nominal  Parties. 

232.  Necessity  of  Written  Authority  to  Appear. 

233.  Manner  of  Entering  Appearance. 

Objection  to  Appearances. 

234.  Right  to  Object. 

235.  Who  May  Object. 

236.  Manner  of  Presenting  Objections. 

237.  Sufficiency  of  Objections. 

238.  Time  to  Object. 

239.  Evidence. 

240.  Requiring  Proof  of  Authority. 

241.  Consequences  of  Unauthorized  Appearance. 

242.  Waiver  of  Objection. 

Effect  of  Unauthorized  Appearance  after  Judgment. 

243.  Generally. 

244.  Domestic  Judgment. 

245.  Foreign  Judgment. 

In  General. 

§  229.  Authority  to  Appear.  —  A  duly  licensed  attorney  at 
law  may,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  appear  in  a  court  of  law,  or  other 
tribunal,  for  the  prosecution  or  defense  of  causes,  or  in  any  other 
lawful    ref)resentative    capacity  ^    if    he    was    retained    for    that 

1  Vnited  States. — Thayer  v.  Wales,  Ala.  252;  Ashby  Brick  Co.  v.  Ely,  etc., 

5  Fish.  Pat.  Cas.  448,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  Dry  Goods  Co.,  151  Ala.  272,  44  So. 

13,872.  96. 

Alabama. — Withers     V.     State,     36  California. — Mahoney  v.  Middleton, 

413 


414 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§  229 


purpose,'^  without  producing  any  special  proof  of  authority  so  to 
do.^  His  authority  will  be  presumed  in  the  absence  of  a  request 
therefor,*  or  the  entrance  of  objections  thereto,^  This  power  has 
existed  for  a  very  long  time/  but  it  does  not  extend  to  one  who  has 
been  disbarred.' 


41    Cal.    41  ;    Foote    v.    Richmond.    42 
Cal.   439. 

Missouri. — Markey  v.  Louisiana  & 
M.  R.  R.  Co.,  185  Mo.  348,  84  S.  W. 
61. 

Xorth  Carolina.  —  Etlieridge  V. 
Woodley,  83  N.  C.  11. 

Vermont. — Abbott  v.  Button,  44  Vt. 
546,  8  Am.  Rep.  394. 

To  deny  a  party  the  right  to  ap- 
pear by  attorney  is  at  once  shutting 
out  from  him  tiiat  source  of  informa- 
tion, and  tliat  exercise  of  his  legal 
rights,  wliich  would  enable  him  to 
make  a  just  and  fair  defense  to  the 
suit  brought  against  him.  Hightower 
r.  Hawthorn,  Hempst.  42,  8  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  6,478b. 

An  erroneous  ruHng  excluding  an 
attorney  from  appearing  in  a  cause 
cannot  avail  the  party  for  whom  said 
attorney  proposed  to  appear,  if  ex- 
cepted to  only  by  said  attorney. 
Rosenbawm  v.  McThomas,  34  Ind.  331. 

2  See  supra,  §§  133-136.  And  see 
also  In  re  Gray,  65  L.  T.  N.  S.  (Eng.) 
743;  Greenhiw  r.  Pettit.  87  Tenn.  467, 
11   S.  W.  357. 

The  fact  that  persons  were  office 
associates  of  an  attorney  and  em- 
ployed by  the  same  employer,  does 
not  justify  an  inference  of  autiiority 
on  the  pail  (if  such  attorney  to  ap- 
pear for  said  persons  in  a  suit 
brougiit  against  them.  Thomson  o. 
Patek,  235  111.  341.  85  N.  E.  603, 
affirming   13H  111.  App.  418. 

^United  States. — Osborn  v.   Tnited 


States  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738.  6  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  204;  United  States  Bank  v. 
Roberts,  4  Conn.  323,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
934. 

Alabama. — Gaines  V.  Tombeckbee 
Bank,  Minor  51. 

loiva. — State  v.  Carothers,  1  G. 
Greene  464. 

Maine. — Penobscot  Boom  Corp.  v. 
Lamson,  16  Me.  224,  33  Am.  Dec.  656; 
Upham  V.  Bradley,  17  Me.  423. 

Maryland. — Henck  v.  Todhunter,  7 
Har.  &  J.  275,  16  Am.  Dec.  300. 

Michigan. — Farmers,  etc..  Bank  v. 
Troy  City  Bank,  1  Doug.  457. 

Mississippi. — Hardin  v.  Ho-yo-[io- 
nubby,  27  Miss.  567. 

Missouri. — Davis  iK  Cohn,  96  Mo. 
App.  587,  70  S.  W.  727. 

Pennsylvania. — Lynch  i'.  Com.,  16 
Serg.  &  R.  368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582; 
Campbell   v.  Galbreath,  5  Watts  423. 

4  See  infra,  §  230. 

5  See  infra,  §§  234-242. 

6  Ancient  statutes,  whereof  the  first 
was  Statute  Westm.  2,  c.  10,  em- 
powered attorneys  to  prosecute  or  de- 
fend an  action  in  the  absence  of  the 
parties  to  the  suit.  3  Blackstone's 
Com.,  25;  Thompson  v.  Blackhurst,  1 
N.  &  M.  271,  28  E.  C.  L.  316:  Vincent 
V.  Bodundo,  2  Keb.   (Eng.)    199. 

At  the  early  common  hue  every 
suitor  was  obliged  to  appear  in  per- 
son.    3  Blackslone's  (^om.  25. 

7  Cobb  V.  Judge,  43  Mich.  289,  5  N. 
W.  309. 


230] 


AUTllOKITY    TO    Ari'KAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


415 


§  230.  Authority  Presumed.  —  The  iniivcnsal  rule  is,  that 
where  an  attorney  appears  and  undertakes  to  act  for  another  in  a 
capacity,  and  for  a  purpose,  within  the  scope  of  the  ordinary  pow- 
ers of  a  duly  licensed  practitioner,  his  authority  to  so  act  will  be 
presumed,^  and  in  the  absence  of  a  sufficient  showing  to  the  con- 


8  United  States. — Mills  v.  Duiyee,  7 
Cranch  481,  3  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  411; 
Osborn  v.  U.  S.  Bank,  9  Wheat.  738, 
6  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  204;  Shelton  v.  Tiffin, 
6  How.  163,  12  U.  S.  ( L.  ed.)  387; 
Hill  V.  Mendenhall,  21  Wall.  453,  22 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  616;  Bonnifield  v. 
Thorp,  71  Fed.  924;  In  re  Gasser,  104 
Fed.  537;  Brown  v.  Arnold,  131 
Fed.  723,  67  C.  C.  A.  125  reversing  127 
Fed.  387;  Aaron  v.  U.  S.,  155  Fed. 
833,  84  C.  C.  A.  67 ;  Underfeed  Stoker 
Co.  V.  American  Ship  Windlass  Co., 
165  Fed.  65. 

Alahama. — Cain  r.  Sullivan,  j\Iinor 
31;  Stubbs  v.  Leavitt,  30  Ala.  352; 
Christian  &  Craft  Co.  v.  Coleman,  125 
Ala.  158,  27  So.  786;  Doe  v.  Abbott, 
152  Ala.  243,  44  So.  637. 

Arizona. — Clark  v.  Morrison,  5 
Ariz.  349,  52  Pac.  985. 

Arkansas. — Tally  v.  Reynolds,  1 
Ark.  99,  31  Am.  Dec.  737;  Wyatt  v. 
Burr,  25  Ark.  476 ;  State  v.  Baxter,  38 
Ark.  462;  Broadway  v.  Sidway,  84 
Ark.  527,  107  S.  W.  163. 

California. — Turner  v.  Caruthers, 
17  Cal.  431;  Hayes  v.  Shattuck,  21 
Cal.  51;  Ricketson  v.  Torres,  23  Cal. 
636;  People  v.  Mariposa  Co.,  39  Cal. 
683;  Garrison  v.  McGowan,  48  Cal. 
592;  San  Luis  Obispa  County  v. 
Hendricks,  71  Cal.  242,  11  Pac.  682; 
Hunter  v.  Bryant,  98  Cal.  248,  33  Pac. 
51 ;  San  Francisco  Sav.  Union  v.  Long, 
123  Cal.  107,  55  Pac.  708,  reversing 
53  Pac.  907;  Pacific  Paving  Co.  v. 
Vizelich,    141    Cal.    4,    74    Pac.    352; 


People's  Home  Sav.  Bank  r.  Rauer,  2 
Cal.  App.  445,  84  Pac.  329;  In  n- 
Meade,  49  Pac.  5. 

Delaware. — Strattner  v.  Wilming- 
ton City  Electric  Co.,  3  Penn.  453,  53 
Atl.  436. 

Georgia. — Dalton  City  Co.  v.  Dalton 
Mfg.  Co.,  33  Ga.  243 ;  Dobbins  i.  Du- 
pree,  39  Ga.  394;  Cassels  v.  Usry,  51 
Ga.  62]  ;  Alexander  v.  State,  56  Ga. 
478;  Saffold  v.  Foster,  74  Ga.  751; 
Hirsch  V.  Fleming,  77  Ga.  594,  3  S.  E. 
9;  Planters',  etc.,  Mut.  F.  Assoc,  v. 
De  Loach,  113  Ga.  802,  39  S.  E.  466; 
Bigham  r.  Kistler,  114  Ga.  453,  40  S. 
E.  303. 

Hanaii. — Oliveira  v.  Silva,  IS 
Hawaii   602. 

Illinois. — Ransom  r.  Jones,  1  Seam. 
291;  Lawrence  r.  Jarvis,  32  111.  304; 
Reed  v.  Curry,  35  111.  536;  Williams 
V.  Butler.  35  111.  544;  Harris  v.  Gal- 
braith,  43  111.  309;  Kenyon  v.  Shreck, 
52  in.  382;  Martin  v.  Judd,  60  111. 
78;  Leslie  v.  Fischer,  62  111.  118; 
School  Directors  v.  School  Trustees, 
66  111.  247;  Ferris  v.  Commercial  Nat. 
Hank,  158  111.  237,  41  N.  E.  1118, 
affirming  55  111.  App.  218 ;  Famous 
Mfg.  Co.  V.  Wilcox,  180  111.  246.  54 
N.  E.  211,  affirming  80  111.  App.  54; 
Thompson  r.  Hemenway,  218  111.  46, 
75  N.  E.  791,  109  Am.  St.  Rep.  239; 
People  V.  Parker,  231  111.  478,  83  N. 
E.  282,  affirming  126  111.  App.  .538; 
Howard  v.  Burke,  248  111.  224,  93  N. 
E.  775,  140  Am.  St.  Rep.  159:  Patter- 
son  V.   Northern   Trust   Co.,   132    111. 


416 


AUTHOEITY    TO    APPEAR   FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§  230 


App.  208,  affirmed  230  111.  334,  82  N. 
E.  837,  and  231  111.  22,  82  N.  E.  840. 

Indiana. — Doe  v.  Brown,  8  Ulackf. 
443;  Indiana,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Maddy, 
103  Ind.  200,  2  N.  E.  574;  Indianapolis 
Chair  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Swift,  132  Ind.  197, 
31  N.  E.  800. 

loira. — State  r.  Carothers,  1  G. 
Greene  464;  Savery  v.  Savery,  8  Iowa 
217;  Harshey  v.  Blackmarr,  20  Iowa 
161,  89  Am.  Dec.  520;  Reid  c.  Dickin- 
son, 37  Iowa  56;  Wheeler  r.  Cox,  56 
Iowa  36,  8  N.  W.  688;  Ellis  V.  White, 
61  Iowa  644,  17  N.  W.  28;  Uehlein  v. 
Burk,  119  Iowa  742,  94  N.  W.  243; 
Lake  City  Electric  Light  Co.  v.  Mc- 
Crary,  132  Iowa  624,  110  X.  W.  19. 

Kansas. — Hendrix  v.  Fuller,  7  Kan. 
331;  Esley  v.  People,  23  Kan.  510; 
Neosha  County  v.  Leahy,  24  Kan.  60; 
Kerr  v.  Reece,  27  Kan.  469;  Reynolds 
r.  Fleming,  30  Kan.  106,  1  Pac.  61,  46 
Am.  Rep.  86. 

Kentucky. — Anderson  v.  Sutton,  2 
Duv.  481;  Handley  v.  Statelor,  Litt. 
Sel.  Cas.  186;  Noble  v.  State  Bank,  3 
A.  K.  Marah.  263 ;  Duff  v.  Combs,  132 
Ky.  710,  117  S.  W.  259;  Howe  v.  An- 
derson, 14  S.  W.  216;  Durrett  v.  Dur- 
rett,  89  S.  W.  210;  Louisville,  St.  L. 
&  T.  R.  Co.  V.  Newsome,  13  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  174. 

Loi/;s!ana. —Dangerficld  r.  Thrus- 
ton,  8  Mart.  (N.  S.)  234;  Tipton  v. 
May  field,  10  La.  180;  Hempkin  v. 
Bowmar,  16  La.  363;  Bonnefoy  v. 
Landry,  4  Rob.  23;  Conrey  V.  Bren- 
liam,  1  La.  Ann.  397;  Campbell  f. 
Arconaux,  3  La.  Ann.  558;  Barnes  v. 
Profilct,  5  La.  Ann.  117;  Maguire  v. 
Bass,  8  La.  Ann.  270;  Walworth  r. 
Henderson,  9  La.  Ann.  339 ;  Patrick's 
Succession,  20  La.  Ann.  204;  Mas- 
flieu's  Succession,  24  La.  Ann.  237; 
Dockham  /•.  Potter,  27  La.  Ann.  73; 
Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  V.  Louisville,  N. 


O.  &  T.  R.  Co.,  43  La.  Ann.  522,  9  So. 
119;  Bender  V.  McDowell,  46  La.  Ann. 
393,  15  So.  21 ;  New  Orleans  V.  Stein- 
hardt,  52  La.  Ann.  1043,  27  So.  586. 

Maine. — Knowlton  i'.  Plantation 
No.  4,  14  Mo.  24;  Penobscot  Boom 
Corp.  V.  Lamson,  16  Me.  224,  33  Am. 
Dec.  656;  Bridgton  v.  Bennett,  23  Me. 
420;  Flint  V.  Comly,  95  Me.  251,  49 
Atl.    1044. 

Maryland. — Munnikuyson  r.  Dor- 
sett,  2  Har.  &  G.  374;  Harding  r.  Hull, 
5  Har.  &  J.  478;  Henck  v.  Todhunter, 
7  Har.  &  J.  275,  16  Am.  Dec.  300; 
African  Methodist  Bethel  Church  r. 
Carmach,  2  Md..  Ch.  143;  Kent  V. 
Ricards,  3  Md.  Ch.  392;  Dorsey  v. 
Kyle,  30  Md.  512,  96  Am.  Dec.  617; 
Fritchey  v.  Bosley.  56  Md.  94;  Hager 
V.  Cochran,  66  Md.  253,  7  Atl.  462; 
Kelso  r.  Stigar,  75  Md.  405,  24  Atl. 
18;  Albert  v.  Albert,  78  Md.  338,  28 
Atl.  389. 

MassacJw  setts. — Fineran  v.  Leon- 
ard, 7  Allen  54,  83  Am.  Dec.  665; 
Lewis  V.  Sumner,  13  Mete.  269;  Steffe 
r.  Old  Colony  R.  Co.,  156  Mass.  262, 
30  N.  E.  1137;  De  Montague  v.  Bach- 
arach,  187  Mass.  128,  72  N.  E.  938. 

Michigan. — Farmers',  etc..  Bank  v. 
Troy  City  Bank,  1  Doug.  457;  Wilcox 
r.  Kassick,  2  Mich.  165;  O'Flynn  v. 
Eagle,  7  Mich.  306;  Norberg  v.  Heine- 
man,  59  Mich.  210,  26  N.  W.  481; 
Corbitt  V.  Timmerman,  95  Mich.  581, 
55  N.  ^V.  437,  35  Am.  St.  Rep.  586; 
Dunlap  V.  Byers,  110  Mich.  109,  67 
N.  W.  1067;  Hirsh  v.  Fisher,  138 
Mich.  95,  101  N.  W.  48. 

Minnesota. — Masterson  v.  LeClaire, 
4  Minn.  163;  Gemmell  v.  Rice,  13 
Minn.  400. 

Mississippi. — Hemphill  r.  Hemphill, 
34  Miss.  69;  Byrne  r.  Jeffries,  38  Miss. 
533;  Schirling  V.  Scites,  41  Miss.  644; 
Lester  v.  Watkins,  41  Miss.  647. 


§  230] 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


417 


Missouri. — Bakor  r.  Stonebrakcr,  34 
Mo.  175;  Valle  v.  Picton,  91  Mo.  207, 
a  S.  W.  860,  16  Mo.  App.  178;  Cochran 
V.  Thomas,  131  Mo.  278,  33  S.  W.  6; 
State  V.  Muonch,  230  Mo.  236,  130  S. 
VV.  282;  Miller  v.  Continental  Assur. 
Co.  of  America,  233  Mo.  91,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912C  102,  134  S.  W.  1003;  Dexter 
Imp.  Assoc.  V.  Dexter  Cliristian  Col- 
lege, 234  Mo.  715,  138  S.  W.  40;  Ring 
V.  Charles  Vogel  Paint,  etc.,  Co.  46 
Mo.  App.  374;  Barkley  Cemetery 
Assoc.  V.  McCune,  119  Mo.  App.  349, 
95  S.  W.  295;  Mignogna  V.  Chiaffarelli, 
151  Mo.  App.  359,  131  S.  W.  769; 
Riley  v.  O'Kelly,  157  S.  W.  566. 

Nebraska. — Kepley  v.  Irwin,  14 
Neb.  300,  15  N.  W.  719;  Vorce  v. 
Page,  28  Neb.  294,  44  N.  W.  452; 
Connell  v.  Galligher,  36  Neb.  749,  55 
N.  W.  229;  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co.  v. 
Fox,  56  Neb.  746,  77  N.  VV.  130;  Ebel 
r.  Stringer,  73  Neb.  249,  102  N.  W. 
466. 

Nevada. — State  v.  California  Min. 
Co.,  13  Nev.  203;  Deegan  v.  Deegan, 
22  Nev.  185,  37  Pac.  360,  58  Am.  St. 
Pep.  742. 

New  Hampshire. — Leavitt  v.  Wal- 
lace, 12  N.  H.  489;  Beckley  v.  New- 
comb,  24  N.  H.  359 ;  Manchester  Bank 
r.  Fellows,  28  N.  H.  302. 

New  Jersey. — Norris  r.  Douglass,  5 
N.  J.  L.  817;  Gifford  v.  Thorn,  9  N.  J. 
Eq.  702;  Ward  v.  Price,  25  N.  J.  L. 
225;  Easton  &  A.  R.  Co.  v.  Greenwich 
Tp.,  25  N.  J.  Eq.  565;  Dey  v.  Hath- 
away Printing,  Telegraph  &  Telephone 
Co.,  41  N.  .J.  Eq.  419,  4  Atl.  675; 
Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co.  v.  Pinner,  43  N. 
J.  Eq.  52,  10  Atl.  184;  State  v.  Pas- 
saic County  Agricultural  Soc,  54  N. 
J.  L.  260,  23  Atl.  680. 

New  York. — Jackson  v.  Stewart,   6 
Johns.  34;   Denton  V.  Noyes,  6  Johns. 
296,  5   Am.   Dee.   237;    Bank  Comr's. 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 27. 


r.  Buffalo,  6  Paige  497;  IMcGarry  r. 
Board  of  Supervisors,  1  Sweeny  217; 
Bogardus  v.  Livingston,  2  Hilt.  236 ; 
Silkman  r.  Boiger,  4  E.  D.  Smith  236; 
Post  V.  Haight,  1  How.  Pr.  171;  Mid- 
dletown  Bank  i\  Huntington,  13  Abb. 
Pr.  402;  Mexico  V.  De  Arangoiz,  5 
Duer  643,  1  Abb.  Pr.  437;  Hamilton 
r.  Wr;  it,  37  N.  Y.  502;  Brown  r. 
Nichols,  42  N.  Y.  26;  Rickey  r.  Cliris- 
tie,  40  Hun  278;  Briggs  v.  Gardner, 
60  Hun  543,  15  N.  Y.  S.  335;  People 
V.  Lamb,  85  Hun  171,  32  N.  Y.  S. 
584;  Cutting  v.  Jessmer,  101  App. 
Div.  283,  15  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  423,  91 
N.  Y.  S.  058;  International  Harvester 
Co.  V.  Champlin,  154  App.  Div.  917, 
140  N.  Y.  S.  842;  People  v  Murray,  2 
Misc.  152,  23  Civ.  Pro.  71,  23  N.  Y.  S. 
160;  Park  v.  Regan,  55  Misc.  235,  105 
N.  Y.  S.  253;  Howard  v.  Smith,  33 
Super.  Ct.  124;  Austen  r.  Columbia 
Lubricants  Co.,  85  N.  Y.  S.  362. 

North  Carolina. — England  c.  Gar- 
ner, 90  N.  C.  197. 

North  Dakota. — Bacon  r.  Mitchell, 
14  N.  D.  454,  106  N.  W.  129,  4  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)   244. 

Ohio. — Sleeper  v.  Sleeper,  1  Handy 
531  ;  Talliaferro  v.  Porter,  Wright 
611  ;  Richards  v.  Skiff,  8  Ohio  St.  586; 
Pillsbury  v.  Dugan,  9  Ohio  117,  34 
Am.  Dec.  427. 

Oklahoma. — Houghton,  etc..  Mer- 
cantile Co.  (;.  Dymont,  2  Okla.  365,  37 
Pac.  1052. 

Pennsylvania. — McCullough  r.  Guet- 
ner,  1  Binn.  214;  Betz  v.  Valer,  15 
Phila.  324,  39  Leg.  Int.  190;  Cyphert 
V.  McClune,  22  Pa.  St.  195;  Miller  v. 
Preston,  154  Pa.  St.  63,  25  Atl.  1041; 
Danville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rhodes,  180 
Pa.  St.  157,  36  Atl.  648;  Munley  v. 
Sugar  Notch  Borough,  215  Pa.  St. 
228,  64  Atl.  377 ;  Kemerrer  v.  Markle, 


418 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOK    LITIGAXTS. 


$     230 


trary,®  the  adverse  party,  having  no  notice  or  ground  of  suspicion, 
may  act  on  that  presumption."  The  rule  applies  to  a  special  as 
well  as  to  a  general  appearance.^^  So,  after  recovery  of  judgment 
the  attorney  who  procured  it,  or  another  attorney,  may  appear  and 
act  for  the  judgment  creditor  in  ulterior  proceedings,  and  the 
court  will  presume  that  he  is  authorized  to  so  act,  in  the  absence 


14  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  493,  7  Kulp.  262,  3  Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  652. 

South  Carolina. — Sanders  i:.  Price, 
56  S.  C.  1,  33  S.  E.  731. 

South  Dakota.  —  Dalbkermeyer  v. 
Seholtes,  3  S.  D.  183,  52  N.  W.  871; 
Xoyes  V.  Belding,  5  S.  D.  603,  59  N.  W. 
1069;  Anderson  v.  Hultman,  12  S.  D. 
105,  80  X.  W.  105. 

Tennessee. — Rogers  v.  Park,  4 
Humph.  480;  Foster  ;;.  Blount,  1 
Overt.  343. 

Texas. — Merritt  ij.  Clow,  2  Tex. 
582:  Fowler  v.  Morrill,  8  Tex.  153; 
Williams  r.  Nolan.  58  Tex.  708; 
Holder  /•.  State,  35  Tex.  Crim.  10,  29 
S.  W.  703;  Boiinell  v.  Prince,  11  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  399,  32  S.  W.  855;  McBur- 
nett  V.  Lampkin,  45  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
567,  101  S.  W.  864:  Brasfield  v. 
Young,  153  S.  \V.  180. 

Vermont.  —  Proprietors  of  Eight 
Thousand  Acre  Tract  v.  Bishop,  2  Vt. 
231. 

Virriinia. — Wilson  ).'.  Smith,  22 
Gratt.  494;  Fislier  r.  March,  26  Gratt. 
705;  Marrow  r.  Brinkley,  85  Va.  59, 
6  S.  E.  605. 

West  Virginia. — Low  r.  Settle,  22 
W,  Va.  387;  Chilhowic  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Lance,  50  W.  Va.  636.  41  S.  E.  128. 

Wisconsm. — Shroudenbeck  v.  P!ioe- 
iiix  F.  Ins.  Co.,  15  Wis.  632;  Tliomas 
/.  Steele.  22  Wis.  207;  Schlit/,  i\ 
Mi-yrr.  61  Wis.  4  IS,  21  N.  W.  243. 

In  courts  of  justice  of  the  peace  of 


'Seio  York  it  was  formerly  held  that 
no  attorneys  were  authorized  to  ap- 
pear as  such  without  proof  of  their 
authority.  Andrews  o.  Long,  19  Hun 
303;  Sperry  v.  Reynolds,  65  X.  Y. 
179.  But  such  a  requirement  was  dis- 
pensed with  by  statute  in  1882.  Aus- 
ten V.  Columbia  Lubricants  Co.,  85 
X.  Y.  S.  362. 

An  attorney's  license  is  prima  facie 
evidence  of  his  authority  to  appear 
for  a  client  in  a  given  case  upon  his 
statement  that  he  represents  such 
client,  so  as  to  require  one  claiming 
the  contrary  to  show  facts  tending  to 
show  want  of  authority,  so  that,  where 
an  attorney  stated  to  the  court  upon 
inquiry  that  he  represented  defendant, 
it  was  ei'ror  to  permit  the  attorney  to 
be  further  interrogated  as  to  his  au- 
thority or  prevent  him  from  appear- 
ing until  the  objecting  party  made  a 
sworn  statement  of  facts  tending  to 
overcome  the  prima  facie  evidence  of 
the  attorney's  authority.  Pekin  Stave 
&  :\Ifg.  Co.  r.  Ramey,  104  Ark.  1,  147 
S.  W.  83. 

9  See   infra,  §§  234-242. 

lODalton  City  Co.  r.  i^alton  ?»lfg. 
Co.,  33  Ga.  243:  Kelso  r.  Stigar,  75 
Md.  376.  24  At).  IS;  Hamilton  r. 
Wriglit,  37  X.  Y.  502;  Talliiiferro  v. 
Porter.  Wriglit    (Oliio)    610. 

llCulting  /■.  .lessmer,  KM  App.  Div. 
283.  15  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  423,  91  N.  Y. 
S.  658. 


§   2-30] 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


419 


of  any  showing  to  the  coiitrary.^^  Xor  does  the  fact  that  the  at- 
torney abandoned  the  cause  before  it  came  to  trial,  prevent  a  de- 
cree rendered  therein  in  favor  of  the  defendant  from  being  prima 
facie  binding  upon  the  party  in  whose  behalf  the  suit  was  filed.^^ 
The  authority  of  an  attorney  to  represent  a  party  has  been  pre- 
sumed from  the  filing  of  pleadings/*  and  from  the  possession  of 
written  instruments  upon  which  suit  has  been  brought,^^  So,  an 
attorney  who  has  appeared  at  previous  stages  in  a  bankruptcy  pro- 
ceeding, and  who  enters  his  appearance  in  opposition  to  the  dis- 
charge of  a  bankrupt,  is  presumed  to  be  duly  authorized. ^^  It  is 
immaterial  whether  the  litigant  for  whom  the  attorney  appears  is 
a  natural,  or  an  artificial  person,"  or  even  though  it  is  a  state, ^^ 
or  a  municipality,^^  or  a  nonresident,^"  or  an  infant,^  or  one  suing 
as  a  pul)lic  officer,^  or  even  though  the  suit  be  entered  by  one  per- 
son to  the  use  of  another,^  or  whether  the  appearance  is  for  sev- 
eral persons.*     Where  an  attorney  enters  his  general  appearance 


12  Woodbury  v.  Nevada  So.  R.  Co., 
]20  Cal.  367,  52  Pac.  6.50;  Nelson  v. 
Jenks,  51  Minn.  108.  52  N.  W.  ]08]. 
See  however  Wiilff  r.  Wulff,  74  Misc. 
213,  ]33  N.  Y.  S.  807,  to  the  contrary. 

13Bigham  r.  Kistler,  114  Ga.  4.53, 
40  S.  E.  .303. 

14  Martin  /;.  Walker,  Abb.  Adm.  579, 
16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,170;  Union  Mut. 
L.  Ins.  Co.  V.  Thomas,  83  Fed.  803,  48 
U.  S.  App.  575,  28  C.  C.  A.  96 ;  Clark 
r.  Morrison,  5  Ariz.  349,  52^^ac.  985; 
Dalton  City  Co.  r.  Dalton  Mfg.  Co., 
33  Ga.  243;  Flint  r.  Comly,  95  Me. 
251,  49  All.  1044:  Patterson  v.  Yan- 
cey, 97  Mo.  App.  681,  71   S.  W.  845. 

15  Reed  r.  Currj',  35  111.  536:  Harris 
r.  Galbraith,  43  111.  309;  Etie  r.  Cade, 
4  La.  383. 

16  In  re  Gasser.  104  Fed.  537,  44 
C.  C.  A.  20. 

17  0sborn  r.  United  States  Bank,  9 
Wheat.  738,  6  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  204; 
People  r.  Rarnett  Tp.  100  111.  332; 
African  ^letliodist  Bethel  Church  o. 
Carmack,  2  !Md.  Ch.  143;  Manchester 


Bank  r.  Fellows,  28  N.  H.  302 ;  Propri- 
etors of  Eight  Tliousand  Acre  Tract 
r.  Bishop.  2  Vt.  231;  Schroudenbeck 
/-.  Phoenix  Fire  Ins.  Co.,  15  Wis  632. 

iSMcCauley  v.  State,  21  Md.  556; 
State  r.  California  Min.  Co.,  13  Nev. 
203. 

19  Delhi  r.  Graham,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
407. 

fO  Flint  r.  Comly,  95  Me.  251,  49 
Atl.  1044. 

1  Hilliard  r.  Carr,  6  Ala.  557. 

2  San  Luis  Obispo  County  v.  Hen- 
dricks. 71  Cal.  242,  11  Pac.  682. 

3  But  see  McAlexander  v.  Wright.  3 
T.  B.  Mon.  (Ky.)  189,  16  Am.  Dec.  9.3, 
wherein  it  was  held:  "That  the  suit 
is  prosecuted  for  the  use  of  another 
in  whose  derivation  of  right  to  the 
demand  there  is  a  manifest  defect,  is 
presumption  which  ought  to  put  the 
attorney  to  show  his  authority." 
Hager  r.  Cocliran,  06  :Md.  253.  7  Atl. 
462. 

4  Odd  Fellows'  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Brander,  124  Cal.  255,  56  Pac.  1109. 


420 


AUTHORITY    TO    APrEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§  231 


for  the  defendants  in  an  action  against  a  partnership,  it  will  be 
construed  as  an  appearance  for  the  purpose  of  defending  the  firm, 
and  not  as  an  appearance  for  the  partners  individually.^  The 
fact  that  an  attorney,  in  argument,  declined  to  answer  a  question 
as  to  his  authority  does  not  rebut  the  presumption.^  The  pre- 
sumption, however,  is  not  conclusive,''  nor  is  it  applicable  to  an 
appearance  entered  by  one  who  is  not  an  attorney  at  law.' 

§  231.  Appearance  for  Co-Parties  and  Nominal  Parties.  — 

Where  there  are  several  parties,  plaintiff  or  defendant,  one  of 
such  parties  may  authorize  an  attorney  to  enter  an  appearance  for 
all,^  providing  they  have  been  duly  served  with  process.^"  Thus 
one  tenant  in  common  can  sue  in  the  names  of  his  co-tenants  with 
or  without  their  consent ;  and  in  an  action  by  some  of  the  tenants 
in  common  for  trespass,  their  attorney  cannot  be  compelled  to 
prove  his  authority  for  adding  the  name  of  the  others  as  parties  to 
the  action."  Where  several  parties  join  in  a  suit  by  their  solicit- 
or, his  authority  will  be  presumed  ^^  imless  some  of  such  parties 


5  Plielps  V.  Brewer,  9  Ciisli.  (Mass.) 
390,  57  Am.  Dec.  56. 

6  Andrews  r.  Thayer,  30  Wis.  228. 

7  United  States. — Standefer  v.  Dow- 
lin,  Hempst.  209,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,284a. 

Alabama. — Dauglidrill  r.  Daugh- 
drill,  108  Ala.  321,  19  So.  185. 

California. — People  v.  Western  Meat 
Co.,  13  Cal.  App.  539,  110  Pac.  338. 

Colorado. — Great  West  Min.  Co.  ?'. 
Woodmas,  12  Colo.  46,  20  Pac.  771,  13 
Am.  St.  Rep.  204. 

Georgia. — Dobbins  r.  Diipree,  39  Ga. 
394;  Bigham  v.  Kistlcr,  114  (Ja.  453, 
40  S.  E.  303. 

Lotii.iiana. — Roselius  r.  Delacliaiso, 
5  La.  Ann.  481,  52  Am.  Dee.  5!)7 ; 
Dockliain  r.  Potter.  27  La.  Ann.  73. 

Mufi.'iarhK.srtts. — Hall  r.  Williams, 
0  Pick.  232,  17  Am.  Di'c  35(1;  Siiiilh 
?•.  Bowditch,  7   I'i-cU.  137. 

MinKouri. — Patterson  (.  Yancey,  97 
Mo.  Aj.p.  081,  71   S.  W.  845. 


8  Stevens  v.  Fuller,  55  N.  H.  443 ; 
Fowler  v.  Morrill,  8  Tex.  153. 

9T^ckwood  V.  Mills,  39  111.  602; 
Scott  r.  Larkin,  13  Vt.  112;  Spaiild- 
ing  V.  Swift,  18  Vt.  214;  Abbott  r. 
Dutton,  44  Vt.  551,  8  Am.  Rep.  394. 
See  also  Hirsh  v.  Fisher,  138  Mich. 
95.  101  X.  W.  48,  11  Detroit  Leg.  N. 
483. 

10  Cox  r.  Hill.  3  Ohio  411 ;  Whitney 
r.  Silver,  22  Vt.  634;  Abbott  v.  Dut- 
ton. 44  Vt.  551,  8  Am.  Rep.  394. 

11  I  nion  Xaval  Stores  Co.  f.  Pugh, 
156  Ala.  3()9,  47  So.  48. 

12  Odd  Fellows'  Sav.  Bank  V. 
I'.rander,  124  Cal.  255,  56  Pac.  1109; 
Hank  Comr's  r.  Buffalo  Bank,  6 
Paige    (N.  Y.)    497. 

Where  one  defendant  sends  the  sum- 
mons to  another,  who  is  also  a  dcfend- 
:iii(.  iind  t^ki's  no  further  notice  of  the 
case,  it  will  hi'  coMcdusively  presumed, 
that  the  other  had  authority  to  em- 
])l()y  coiiiisid  to  represent  him.     Wag- 


§    232]  AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS.  421 

object  to  the  proceedings,^^  or  an  adverse  party  shows  affirmative- 
ly that  the  suit  is  unanthorized  as  to  some  of  the  plaintiffs.^*  So, 
where  a  pleading  or  demurrer  is  interposed  by  counsel  for  ''the  de- 
fendants," it  will  be  presumed  that  such  counsel  are  acting  for  all 
the  defendants.^^ 

A  warrant  of  attorney  sigTied  by  the  purchaser  of  a  note  in  the 
name  of  the  payee  is  sufficient  authority  for  the  attorney  to  ap- 
pear in  an  action  on  the  note,  though  the  purchaser  have  no  writ- 
ten authority  so  to  sigTi.-^®  So,  a  power  of  attorney  to  prosecute  a 
suit  executed  by  a  nominal  plaintiff  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the 
attorney's  appearance,  where  the  real  party  in  interest  makes  no 
objection.^'''  But  an  attorney  for  the  principal  defendants  in  pro- 
ceedings by  trustee  process  (suit  in  the  nature  of  an  attachment), 
has  no  right  to  appear  suo  motu,  or  at  the  instance  of  his  clients, 
in  behalf  of  the  trustees ;  nor  can  he  move  for  the  discharge  of  the 
trustees  upon  their  disclosure.''^ 

§  232.  Necessity  of  Written   Authority  to   Appear.  —  It 

has  been  said  that  every  attorney,  before  he  brings  an  action,  ought 
to  take  a  written  direction  from  his  client  for  commencing  it.^^ 
It  is  well  settled,  however,  that  there  is  no  necessitv  of  havinc;  writ- 
ten  authority  to  enter  an  appearance  ^°  unless  required  by  statute. 

ener  v.  Swygert,  30  S.  C.  296,  9  S.  E.  18  Jacobs  v.  Copeland,  54  Me.  503. 

107.  19  Owen  v.  Ord,  3  C.  &  P.  349,  14  E. 

13  Bank  Comr's  v.  Buffalo  Bank,  6  C.  L.  342,  wherein  Tenterden,  C.  J.. 
Paige    (X.  Y.)    497.  said  that  an  attorney  ought  to  take 

14  Bank  Comr's  v.  Buffalo  Bank,  6  sucli  a  writing  "both  for  his  own  sake 
Paige    (X.  Y.)    497.  and  for  the  sake  of  his  client.     It  is 

15  Adams  v.  Mowry,  6  Mo.  App.  582.  j^^ici,  better  for  him,  because  it  gets 

16  Johnson  V.  Sikes,  49  N.  C.   70.  ^.j^j  ^^  ^^jj  difficulty  about  proving  his 

17  Culver  V.  Barney,  14  Wend.  (N.  retainer;  and  it  also  would  be  better 
Y.)    161.     Compare  Mississippi   Cent.  ^^^  ^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^  ^^  .^  ^^^^,j^^ 


R.  Co.  V.  Southern  R.  Assoc,  8  Phila 
(Pa.)  107,  wherein  it  was  said  that 
where  the  warrant  of  an  attorney  is 
not  executed  by  the  legal  plaintiffs, 
but  by  the  executors  of  a  decedent  to 
whose    use   the    suit    is    marked,    the 


put  them  on  their  guard,  and  prevent 
them  from  being  drawn  into  law- 
suits without  their  own  express  di- 
rection." 

20  United    States. — U.    S.    Bank    v. 


equitable   plaintiffs   must   show   their       Roberts,  4  Conn.  323,  2  Fed.  Cas.  No. 

authority  to  use  the  name  of  the  legal       ^■^^• 

plaintiffs.  Alahama. — Gaines     V.     Tombeckbee 


422 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


§0  o  o 


This  applies  as  well  to  an  appearance  for  corporations  as  to  that 
for  natural  persons.^  A  similar  rule  has  been  stated  heretofore 
with  respect  to  the  necessity  of  a  written  retainer.^ 

§  233.  Manner  of  Entering  Appearance.  —  In  courts  of 
record  the  actual  appearance  is  always  effected  by  a  writing  of 
some  kind.  Where  the  common-law  system  of  practice  prevails 
an  action  is  instituted  by  the  filing  of  a  prcecipe,  sigTied  by  the 
plaintift"s  attorney,  directing  the  issuance  of  the  original  writ,  and 
the  defendant's  attorney  a])pears  either  by  entering  his  name  on 
the  docket  or  by  giving  the  clerk  (sometimes  called  a  prothono- 
tary)  a  written  direction  to  do  so.     Where  code  systems  prevail  the 


Bank,  Minor  50;  Lncas  r.  CJeoigia 
Bank,  2  Stew.  ]47. 

California. — Pacific  Paving  Co.  v. 
Vizelich.  141  Cal.  4,  74  Pac.  352. 

Delaware.- — State  r.  Houston,  3 
Har.  20. 

Illinois. — Leslie  r.  Fisher,  62  111. 
118. 

hidiana. — Donglierty  r.  Andrews,  19 
Ind.  400. 

Kentucky. — McAlexander  v.  Wright, 
?,  T.  B.  Mon.  189,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 

Maine. — Penobscot  Boom  Corp.  v. 
Lamson,  16  Me.  224,  33  Am.  Dec.  656; 
Bridgton  i\  Bennett,  23  Me.  420. 

Maryland. — Henck  v.  Todhunter,  7 
Har.  &  J.  275,  IG  Am.  Dec.  300. 

MassacJiUsetts. — Field  r.  Common, 
etc..  Land,  1  Cush.  U. 

Michigan. — Farmers',  etc.,  Bank  r. 
Troy  City  Bank,  1  Doug.  457;  O'Flynn 
r.  Eagle,  7  Mich.  306. 

Minnesota. — Farrington  r.  Wright, 
1    Minn.  241. 

Mississippi. — McKicrnaii  r.  Patrick, 
4  How.  335;  Hardin  /".  H()-\o-|jo- 
nubhy,  27  Miss.  507;  Schiriing  r. 
ScitcB,   41    Miss.  644. 

Missouri. — State  r.  Criinih,  157  .Mo. 
545,  57  S.  W.  10:U). 

New  Hampshire. — .Maiicln'stiT  B;ink 


r.  Fellows,  28  N.  H.  302;  Stevens  v. 
Fuller^  55  N.  H.  443;  Bodge  V.  Butler, 
57  N.  H.  204. 

Xetc  Jersey. — Bowlsby  r.  .Johnston, 
13  N.  J.  L.  349. 

New  York. — Howard  v.  Howard,  11 
How.  Pr.  80;    Hirslifield  f.  Landman, 

3  E.  D.  Smith  208;  Silkman  v.  Boiger, 

4  E.  D.  Smitli  236;  People  v.  Murray, 
23  Civ.  Pro.  71,  33  N.  Y.  S.  160, 
affirmed  138  N.  Y.  635,  33  N.  E.  1084. 

North  Carolina. — .Jolinson  r.  Sikes, 
49  N.  C.  70. 

Pennsylvania. — Lynch  v.  Com.,  16 
Serg.  &  R.  368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582; 
Danville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Rhodes.  180 
Pa.  St.  157,  36  Atl.  648;  Com.  r. 
Serf  ass,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.   139. 

South  Carolina. — Hellman  r.  Mc- 
Wliennie,  3   Rich.  L.  364. 

Wisconsin. — XA'alker  r.  Rogan.  1 
Wis.  597. 

lOsborn  /•.  U.  S.  Bank,  9  Wheat. 
738,  6  V.  S.  (L.  ed.)  204;  Manchester 
P.ank  /■.  Fellows,  28  N.  H.  302;  Pro- 
prietors of  Kiglit  Thousand  Acre 
Tract  r.  Bisiiop,  2  Vt.  231.  See  also 
Indianapolis  Ciiair  Mfg.  Co.  V  Swift, 
132   hid.   197,  :!1   N'.   E.  800. 

2  See  supra,   §    135. 


§     '2',j4r\  AU'J'JLOKl'J'Y    TO    AI'l'KAU    FOll    LlTJtiAM'S.  4:2o 

suit  is  iisualK'  instituted  by  a  summons  signed  by  the  plaintiit's 
attorney,  and  to  this  the  attorney  for  the  defendant  usually  an- 
swers by  a  written  notice  of  retainer  or  the  filing  of  an  answer. 
In  courts  not  of  record  appearances  are  usually  effected  by  ap- 
pearing in  jjerson,  though  there  may  be  occasions  where  the  ex- 
perienced practitioner  will  see  the  wisdom  of  filing  a  written  ap- 
pearance or  notice  of  retainer,  as,  for  instance,  where  the  magis- 
trate is  not  disposed  to  be  fair  with  his  client. 

Objection,  to  Appearances. 

§  234.  Right  to  Object.  —  The  right  to  be  employed  and  ap- 
pear is  one  thing;  the  fact  of  being  actually  employed  is  another 
matter,^  and  irrespective  of  the  presumption  of  authority  to  ap- 
pear mentioned  in  a  preceding  section,*  a  party  may  require  the 
attorney  representing  his  adversary  to  show  his  authority ;  this 
right  is  essential  to  the  security  of  all  suitors,  and  its  existence 
cannot  be  denied.^  Of  course,  the  fact  that  an  attorney  appears 
for  a  party  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  his  authority  to  do  so,^  and 
the  fact  that  warrants  of  attorney  have  been  seldom  called  for  is 
loud  testimony  in  favor  of  the  integrity  of  the  profession ;  '  never- 
theless in  every  case  where  there  is  reasonable  ground  to  appre- 
hend that  an  attorney  is  proceeding  without  the  permission  of  the 
individual  whom  he  alleges  to  represent  on  the  record,  he  should 
be  required  to  show  his  authoritj^  when  it  is  properly  questioned.* 
He  is  not  authorized  to  appear  whether  employed  or  not,  or  to  ap- 

3  :McAlcxan(lcr    /■.    Wright,   3    T.    B.  5  Tally   r.   Reynolds,    1   Ark.   99,   31 
Mon.    (Ky.)    189,  16  Am.  Dec.  93.               Am.  Dec.  737. 

The   court   may,    in    a   proper   case.  It  is  error  for  a  court  to  permit  an 

make  an  order  requiring  the  attorney  attorney  to  appear  for  a  party  with- 

for  plaintiff  to  furnish  defendant  with  out  proof  of  autliority.  but  the  error 

plaintiffs  residence  and  address.    Vin-  is  cured  by  subsequent  proof  thereof 

cent   r.   Vanderbilt,   10   How.  Pr.    (N.  during    the   trial.     Ford   r.    Smitli,    1 

Y.)     324:    Corbett    v.   De  Comeau,    4r)  Wend.  (X.  Y.)   49. 

Super.   C't.    (X.    Y.)    637;    Corbett    r.  6  Great  West  Min.  Co.  r.  Woodraas 

Gibson.   18  Hun    (X.  Y.)    49;    Post  r.  of   Alston    Min.    Co.,    12   Colo.   4G,   20 

Schneider.    ;iO   Hun   619   mem.,    13   X.  Pac.  771,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  204. 

Y.  S.  396.    Walton  r.  Fairchild,  4  X.Y.  7  McAlexander    r.    Wright.   3    T.    B. 

S.  552.     See  also  aupra.  §  il24.  Mon.   (Ky.)    189. 

4  See  supra,  §  230.  8  United  titates. — King  of  Spain  v. 


424 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


L§  --i-y' 


pear  for  anyone  at  the  instance  of  a  stranger  who  may  have  no 
legal  or  eqnitable  interest  in  the  caiise.^  There  can  scarcely  be  a 
more  gross  violation  of  the  duty  of  an  attorney  than  knowingly 
and  wilfully  to  appear  for  and  represent  a  party  to  an  action 
without  authority/" 


§  235.  Who  May  Object.  — An  objection  to  an  unauthorized 
appearance  may,  of  course,  be  made  by  the  party  for  whom  it  was 
entered.^^     So,  also,  the  adverse  party  may  present  an  objection,^^ 


Oliver,  2  Wash.  429,  ]4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,814. 

Arkansas. — Tally  v.  Reynolds,  1 
Ark.  99,  31  Am.  Dec.  737;  Cartwell  v. 
Menifee,  2  Ark.  356. 

California. — San  Francisco  Sav. 
Union  v.  Long,  123  Cal.  107,  55  Pac. 
708,  reversing  53  Pac.  907. 

Colorado.  —  Williams  v.  Uncom- 
pahgre  Canal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22  Pac. 
806;  Colorado  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Car- 
pita,  6  Colo.  App.  248,  40  Pac.  248. 

Delav:are. — State  V.  Houston,  3 
Har.  15. 

Georgia. — Ga.  Code  (1911),  sec. 
4961. 

Kentucky. — Belt  v.  Wilson,  6  J.  J. 
Marsh.  495,  22  Am.  Dec.  88. 

Louisiana. — Rose! ins  r.  Delachaise, 
5  La.  Ann.  481,  52  Am.  Dec.  597. 

Minnesota. — Farrington   r.  Wright, 

1  Minn.  241. 

}fississippi. — ^IcKicnuui  r.  Patrick, 
4  How.  333. 

\cw  York. — Excise  Coni'rs  /".  Pur- 
dy,  36  Harb.  266;  Ninety-nine  Plain- 
tilTs  V.  Vandcrbilt,  4  Duer  632;  HirSh- 
field  r.  Landman,  3  K.  D.  Smith  208; 
T [fill ins  r.  St.  Louis  &  Chicago  R.  Co., 
r,7  Hum  139,  11  N.  Y.  S.  27;  Vincent  r. 
Vaiich-rhill.  10  How.  Pr.  32^.  1  Al.li. 
Pr.  193. 

I'iunHjih-iinia. — liuutlier  V.  Jolinson, 

2  Jlrowne  17. 


^onth  Carolina. — Allen  v.  Green,  1 
Bailey  L.  448. 

Tennessee. — Rogers  v.  Park,  4 
Humph.  480;  Ex.  p.  Gillespie,  3  Yerg. 
325. 

9McAlexander  v.  Wright,  3  T.  B. 
Mon.  (Ky.)   189,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 

10  San  Francisco  Sav.  Union  v. 
Long,  123  Cal.  107,  55  Pac.  708,  revers- 
ing 53  Pac.  907. 

11  Baldwin  v.  Foss,  14  Neb.  455,  16 
N.  W.  480;  White  v.  Merriam,  16  Neb. 
96,  19  N.  W.  703;  Hess  r.  Cole,  23  N. 
J.  L.  116;  Hunt  r.  Brennan,  1  Hun 
(N.  Y.)  213;  Stewart  v.  Stewart,  56 
How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   256. 

12  United  States. — King  of  Spain  v. 
Oliver,  2  Wash.  429,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,814. 

Arkansas. — Tally  v.  Reynolds,  1 
Ark.  99,  31  Am.  Dec.  737;  State  v. 
Baxter,  38  Ark.  462. 

California. — People  V.  Mariposa  Co., 
39  Cal.  683. 

Colorado. — Colorado  Coal,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Carpita,  6  Colo.  App.  248.  40  Pac. 
248. 

loira. — State  r.  Tilglimaii,  6  Iowa 
496;  ^'ockcy  r.  Woodhuiy  County,  130 
Iowa  412,  IOC.  X.  W.  950:  Ccxle  Sec. 
.320. 

Kvntuckji. — ]\IcAIexandor  r.  Wright, 
3  T.  B.  Mon.  194,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 


235] 


AUTllOJilTY    TO    Ari'EAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


425 


by  showing  the  requisite  facts/^  and  acting  in  due  time ;  "  but, 
without  notice,  he  is  not  obliged  to  inquire  into  and  ascertain 
whether  an  attorney  who  enters  an  appearance  for  a  party  is  duly 
authorized  to  do  so.^*  He  may  rely  on  the  presumption  of  au- 
thority.^® As  a  rule,  the  court  will  not  of  its  own  motion  question 
the  authority  of  an  attorney  to  appear  in  a  cause, ^'  nor  will  the 
court  undertake  to  decide  which  of  several  contending  counsel  has 
the  better  right  to  control  and  manage  the  cause  in  which  they 
appear.'^*  But  should  the  circumstances  warrant  such  action,  the 
court  would  undoubtedly  have  the  right  to  act  on  its  own  motion, 
or  by  the  appointment  of  an  amicus  curice,  as,  for  instance,  where 
a  fraud  was  apparent  or  suggested. ^^  A  stranger  to  the  record 
will  not  be  heard  to  question  the  attorney's  authority,^"  nor  will 
a  party  who  no  longer  has  a  litigable  interest.^ 

§  236.  Manner    of    Presenting    Objections.  —  The    usual 
practice  is  to  present  an  objection  to  an  unauthorized  apj^earance 


Michigan. — Hirsli  v.  Fisher,  138 
Mich.  95,  101  N.  W.  48. 

New  York.— Code  Civ.  Proc.  §§ 
1512,  1514,  2890.  See  also  Hollina  v. 
St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  57  Hun  139,  11 
N.  Y.  S.  27;  99  Plaintiffs  v..Vander- 
bilt,  1  Abb.  Pr.  193.  And  see  also  the 
cases  cited  in  the  preceding  section. 

13  See  infra,  §  237. 

14  See  infra.   §  238. 

iSBudd  V.  Gamble,  13  Fla.  265. 

16  See  supra,  §  230. 

17  Great  West  Min.  Co.  r.  Woodmas 
of  Alston  Min.  Co.,  12  Colo.  4(3.  20 
Pac.  771,  13  Ajn.  St.  Eep.  204:  Howe 
r.  Anderson,  (Ky.)  14  S.  W.  216; 
People  V.  Murray,  2  Misc.  152,  23  Civ. 
Pro.  71,  23  N.  Y.  S.  160. 

18  Eriko  V.  Bomford,  1  Hayw.  &  H. 
(D.  C.)  261,  8  Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,517. 

19  "Doubtless  where  fraud  was  sug- 
gested, and  especially  if  a  minor  was 
concerned  and  in  danger  of  being  in- 
jured by  an  unautliorized  proceeding 
before  us,  we  would  for  the  protection 


of  either  giiardian,  ward,  or  defend- 
ant, inquire  into  the  attorney's  au- 
thority." State  V.  Houston,  3  Ifar. 
(Del.)  15. 

20  Pond  V.  Lockwood,  8  Ala.  669; 
Hirsch  v.  Fleming,  77  Ga.  594,  3  S.  E. 
9;  Hookey  v.  Greenstein,  119  App. 
Div.  209,  104  N.  Y.  S.  621 ;  Bryans  v. 
Taylor,  Wright  (Ohio)  245;  Miller  r. 
Continental  Assur.  Co.,  233  Mo.  91, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912C  102,  134  S.  W.  1003. 

1  \\']iere  no  judgment  was  rendered 
against  certain  individual  defendants 
in  proceedings  for  the  appointment  of 
a  receiver  of  a  corporation  from  which 
an  appeal  would  lie,  they  had  no  per- 
sonal interest  in  an  appeal  from  an 
order  denying  a  motion  to  discharge 
the  receiver  which  would  authorize 
them  to  contest  the  authority  of  the 
attorneys  for  the  corporation  to  pre- 
sent a  motion  to  dismiss  the  appeal. 
Miller  r.  Continental  Assur.  Co.,  233 
Mo.  91.  Ann.  Cas.  1912C  102,  134  S. 
W.  1003. 


426 


AUTIIOIUTY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


L§  i^-t> 


by  motion,^  or  petition,^  in  the  court  below,*  based  on  affidavits 
showing  prima  facie  want  of  authority.^  Such  motion  should  seek 
either  to  vacate  the  appearance,  to  dismiss  the  action,  for  an  or- 
der requiring-  authority  to  be  shown,  or  to  vacate  the  judgment 
where  jurisdiction  was  acquired  solely  by  the  appearance  of  the 


Z  Alabama. —  Brown  r.  French,  159 
Ala.  (545,  49  So.  255. 

California. — Turner  v.  Caruthers,  17 
Cal.  432 ;  Clark  v.  Willett,  35  Cal.  534. 

Colorado. — Dillon  r.  Rand,  15  Colo. 
372,  25  Pac.  1S5. 

Georr/ia. — Lester  r.  Mcintosh.  101 
Ga.  675,  29  S.  E.  7;  Workingmen's 
Union  Assoc,  v.  Reynolds,  135  Ga.  5, 
68  S.  E.  697. 

Illinois. — Mix  V.  People,  116  111. 
265,  4  X.  E.  783 ;  Congregation  of  the 
Resurrection  v.  Laibe,  152  111.  App. 
417. 

Iowa. — State  r.  Beardsley,  108  la. 
396,  79  X.  VV.  138. 

Missoui~i. — Riley  r.  O'Kelly,  157  S. 
W.  566. 

Xeiv  Jersei/-— Xortli  Brunswick  Tp. 
V.  Booraem,  10  X.  J.  L.  257. 

Neic  York. — People  r.  Lamb,  85 
Hun  171,  32  X.  Y.  S.  584;  Excise 
Com'rs  V.  Purdy,  13  Abb.  Pr.  434. 

South  Carolina. — Hellinan  v.  Mc- 
Wliennie,  3  Rich.  L.  364. 

.S'o!/</i  Z)aAo^a.— Mead  r.  Mead,  28 
S.  D.  131,  132  \.  W.  701. 

Texas. — Bridge  /;.  Sanuielson,  73 
Tex.  522,  11  S.  W.  539;  Iless  r.  Webb, 
113  S.  W.  618;  State  /■.  :iliirpliy.  137 
S.  \\.  7()S. 

3  Dilldii    /•.    Rand,    15    (  olo.    372.    25 

I'lir.      IS.'). 

4  Williiiins  r.  I'.iitlcr.  :!.')  111.  .")H  ; 
D.'liii    r.    Dclm,    17n    Mirh.  -107,    l.'lfi    X. 

W.   1.-.:;. 

f>  I'niti  ,1  Slatfs. — Stiinrlcfci-  r.  Dow- 
liii,  II.'Mipst.  209,  22  Fed.  (lis.  \(..  i:i.- 
284a;    I'.diiiiilicld   r. 'ilioip,  7  1   l^'.'d.  924. 


Arkansas. — Cartwell  v.  Menifee,  2 
Ark.  356. 

Illinois. — People  r.  Barnett  Tp., 
100   111.  332. 

Louisiana. — Dangeifield  r.  Tlirus- 
ton,  8  Mart.  X.  S.  232 ;  Hayes  r.  Cuny, 
9  Mart.  87;  Johnson  v.  Brandt,  10 
Mart.  638;  Kelly  r.  Benedict,  5  Rob. 
138,  39  Am.  Dec.  530;  Fisher  i\  Moore. 
12  Rob.  95;  Patrick's  Succession,  20 
La.  Ann.  204;  Dockliam  r.  Potter,  27 
La.  Ann.  73;  Postal  Tel.  Cable  Co.  r. 
Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  43  La.  Ann. 
522,  9  So.  119;  Xew  Orleans  r.  Steiii- 
hardt,  52  La.  Ann.   1043,  27   So.  586. 

Texas. — Bridge  r.  Samuelson,  73 
Tex.  522,  1 1  S.  W.  539.  And  see  the 
section  following. 

"A  certain  degree  of  sanctity  at- 
taches to  tlie  act  of  an  attorney  at 
law,  as  an  officer  of  court,  which  raises 
a  legal  presumption  that  it  was  au- 
thorized, and  imposes  on  the  client 
denying  his  authority  the  duty  of  sup- 
porting his  denial  with  an  oath,  in 
order  to  overcome  that  prosumjjtion 
and  put  tlie  opposite  party  to  proof. 
We  find  no  ease  which  goes  to  the  ex- 
tent of  liolding  that  tlie  making  of 
such  an  affidavit  is  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  the  administration  of  any 
proof  under  ills  ple;i.  We  tliiidv  it 
was  compelent  for  the  defendant  to 
lie  heard."  liender  r.  Mel)(i\V(dI,  46 
i.;i.   Ann.  :!9:i,    l.")   So.  21. 

W  In,  Man  •I^^/'f  Afl\(larit.—\\\\en  a 
l>;n(y  repudiates  the  autliority  of  an 
atloriii'v  at  law  to  liaxc  acted  fur  liim, 
it  is  necessary  tliat  his  assertion 
Hliuiild  be  snpjiorted   by   his  own  oath, 


§  236] 


AUTHORITY    TO    AITEAR   FOR    LITIGANTS. 


427 


attorney.®  Xotice  of  motion  must,  of  cuurso,  be  given  to  the  at- 
torne}'.''^  And  in  some  jurisdictions  the  time  for  oljjeetion  is  liuiit- 
ed  by  rule.^  Allegations  on  information  and  belief  that  the  suit 
was  instituted  without  authority  are  insuthcic^nt  to  raise  the  ques- 
tion.^ An  unauthorized  appearance  cannot  be  objected  to  by 
answer,^"  demurrer/^  or  plea,^^  nor,  as  a  general  rule,  can  it  be  at- 
tacked collaterally.^^     No  written  answer  is  reqnired  on  the  part  of 


and  not  that  of  an  agent.  Boykin  f. 
Holden,  ()  La.  Ann.  120. 

eBonnifield   v.  Thorp,  71   Fod.  924. 

"The  established  practice  in  this 
country  and  England  is  to  apjjly  to 
the  court  by  petition  stating  tiie  facts 
relied  on  to  overcome  tlie  presumption 
[of  authority  to  appear],  and  asking 
a  rule  upon  the  attorney  to  tile  his 
warrant.  When  he  has  complied  with 
tiie  rule  by  filing  a  warrant  sufticient 
in  form  and  in  the  manner  of  its  exe- 
cution, the  rule  has  been  complied 
with  and  is  functus  officio.  Tf  the  war- 
rant is  alleged  to  be  defective,  or 
forged,  or  in  any  manner  insufficient 
to  justify  the  court  in  treating  it  as 
autiiority  for  the  appearance  of  the 
attorney,  the  defect  sliould  be  pointed 
out  by  exceptions  and  its  sufficiency 
passed  upon  by  the  court."  Danville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Rhodes,  180  Pa.  St.  157, 
159,  36  Atl.  648. 

7  Beckley  v.  Newcomb.  24  N.  H. 
359;  Nash  r.  Gilkeson,  5  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)    352. 

8  Norwood  r.  Dodge,  (Mass.)  102 
N.  E.  412. 

9  United  states. — Bonnifield  v. 
Thorp.  71   Fed.  924. 

Illinois. — Crane  r.  Nelson,  37  111. 
App.  597. 

Louisiana. — Cigand  v.  New  Orleans, 
52  La.  Ann.  12.59,  27  So.  794. 

Missouri. — Valle  v.  Picton,  16  Mo. 
App.  178:  Robinson  v.  Robinson,  32 
Mo.  App.  88. 


Compare  Excise  Com'rs  r.  Purdy, 
13  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  434,  wherein  it 
was  iield  tliat  on  motion  to  dismiss  an 
action  commenced  by  an  attorney 
witliout  authority,  allegations  upon 
information  and  belief,  in  the  moving 
affidavits,  as  to  the  want  of  authority, 
not  contradicted  or  explained,  are  to 
be  taken  as  true. 

10  Mix  r.  People,  116  111.  265,  4  N. 
E.  783;  State  /;.  Beardsley,  108  la. 
396,  79  N.  W.  138;  Robinson  r.  Rob- 
inson, 32  Mo.  App.  88;  Doolittlo  r. 
Gookin,  10  Vt.   265. 

11  State  r.  Baxter,  38  Ark.  462; 
Workingmen's  Union  Assoc,  v.  Rey- 
nolds, 135  Ga.  5,  68  S.  E.  697:  Mix  r. 
People,  116  111.  265,  4  N.  E.  783;  Gib- 
son r.  State.  .59  Miss.  341. 

12  Lester  r.  Mclntosli,  101  Ga.  675, 
29  S.  E.  7;  North  Brunswick  Tp.  r. 
Booraem,  10  N.  J.  L.  257;  E.xcise 
Com'rs  r.  Purdy,  13  Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.) 
434. 

13  United  States. — Compare  Shel- 
ton  r.  Tiffin,  G  How.  163,  12  U.  S. 
(L.  od.)  387. 

Indiana. — Bush  v.  Busli,  46  Ind.  70; 
Pressley  r.  Lamb,  105  Ind.  171,  4  N. 
E.  682. 

Louisiana. — Patrick's  Succession, 
20  La.  Ann.  204. 

Michifjan. — Corbitt  r.  Timmerman, 
95  Mich.  581,  55  N.  W.  437,  35  Am.  St. 
Rep.  586. 


428  AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAE    FOR    LITIGANTS.  [§    237 

the  attorney  whose  right  to  appear  is  thus  questioned.  ^^  When 
the  authority  of  the  attorney  to  appear  is  questioned  and 
presented  to  the  court  for  determination,  it  should,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  take  precedence  of  other  proceedings,  because  its  de- 
termination is  essential  in  order  that  the  court  and  all  parties  in- 
terested in  the  suit  or  proceeding  may  know  whether  the  acts  of 
the  attorney  in  the  particular  suit  are  or  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
the  acts  of  the  party  whom  he  professes  to  represent. ^^ 

§  237.  Sufficiency  of  Objections.  —  In  order  to  invoke  the 
exercise  of  the  power  of  the  court  to  question  an  attorney's  au- 
thority to  appear,  it  is  necessary  to  state  facts  showing  or  tending 
to  show  that  the  attorney  does  not  possess  the  authority  which  he 
assumes ;  otherwise  the  presumption  arising  from  his  license  and 
a^Dpearance  will  prevail. ^^  The  courts  will  not  impose  hardships 
on  the  profession  in  their  management  of  suits ;  nor  will  they  grat- 
ify the  party  to  which  they  are  opposed  by  compelling  the  pro- 
duction of  a  warrant  of  attorney  upon  light  or  frivolous  grounds ; 
but  Avhen  substantial  reasons  are  shown  why  the  interest  of  the 
adverse  party  is  jeopardized  by  the  prosecution  of  a  suit  without 
the  consent  of  the  party  for  whom  the  appearance  was  entered, 

yrrada. — Deegan  v.  Deegan,  22  Nev.  /ojta.— Savery    i".    Savery,    8    Iowa 

185.  87  Pac.  360,  58  Am.  St.  Rep.  742.  217. 

?\'civ     York. — Doiioliue    r.     Hunger-  Kentucky. — McAlexander  c.  Wright, 

ford,  1  App.  Div.  528,  37  N.  Y.  S.  628;  3  T.  B.  Mon.  189,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 

Hendrick  r.  Biggar,  66  Misc.  576,  122  Missouri. — Valle  v.  Picton.   91    Mo. 

N.  Y.  S.  162.     Compare  Ferguson  v.  207.  3  S.  W.  860. 

Crawford,  70  N.  Y.  253,  26  Am.  Rep.  New     Jersey. — Dey     r.     Hathaway 

589,  reversing  7  Hun  25.  Printing,  etc.,  Co.,  41  N.  J.  Eq.  419,  4 

South  Carolina. — Dillard  r.  Crook-  Atl.   675. 

er,  Speer  Eq.  20.  Pennsylvania. — Danville,      etc.,     R. 

Texas.— Hess    v.   Webb,    113    S.   W.  (^o.  r.  Rhodes,  180  Pa.  St.  157,  36  Atl. 

618.  648,  40  W.  N.  C.  5. 

14  I'.riilge  /■.  Sanmelson,  73  Tex.  522,  South    Carolina. — llelhnan    r.    Mc- 
1  1   S.  W.  539.  Wliennie,  3  Rich.  L.  364. 

15  Williams    r.   Uncompahgre  Canal  Vermont. — Doolittle    (".    Gookin,    10 
Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22  Pac.  806.  Vt.   265. 

IS  California. — People    V.    Marij)08a  West    Virginia. — Low   v.  Settle,   22 

Co.,  39  Cal.  683.  W.  Va.  387. 


§  237] 


AUTHORITY    TO    ArrEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


429 


every  reasonable  person  will  agree  that  their  authority  ought  to  be 
shown. ^'''  The  facts  presented  should  be  sufficient  to  raise  at  least 
a  suspicion  of  fraud, ^*  or  of  an  attempt  to  impose  upon  a  party/^ 
or  to  abuse  or  pervert  the  process  of  the  court.^°     An  affidavit  on 


"Tally  V.  Reynolds,  1  Ark.  90,  31 
Am.  Dec.  737. 

18  Kelso  r.  Stigar,  75  Md.  378,  24 
Atl.  ]8;  Delhi  v.  Graham,  3  Ilun 
( X.  Y. )  407  ;  Mexico  v.  De  Arangoiz, 
5  Duer   (N.  Y.)  643. 

19  Mexico  V.  De  Arangoiz,  5  Duer 
(N.  Y.)  643. 

The  adverse  party  can  demand  the 
attorney's  authority  only  where  he 
shows  liis  rights  are  jeopardized  with- 
out it,  or  that  he  was  disturbed  by  be- 
ing brought  into  litigation  without 
the  consent  of  the  other  part}'.  Mc- 
Alexander  v.  Wright,  3  T.  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)   194,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 

Where  a  plaintiff  brought  suit  al- 
leging that  he  was  the  assignee  of  a 
judgment  to  enforce  the  same,  and 
the  defendant,  in  an  affidavit,  stated 
tliat  the  judgment  plaintiff  liad  long 
since  left  the  country,  and  had  not 
been  heard  from,  and  that  he  believed 
him  to  be  dead,  and  that  he  had  givi;n 
no  authority  to  anyone  to  prosecute 
the  suit,  and  that  the  person  pretend- 
ing to  have  an  assignment  of  the  judg- 
ment, and  for  whose  use  the  suit  was 
prosecuted,  liad  no  title  thereto,  it  was 
held  that  the  affidavit  was  sufficient 
to  entitle  defendant  to  a  rule  to  the 
counsel  for  plaintiff  to  show  some 
right  in  those  for  whose  benefit  the 
suit  was  brouglit,  either  legally  or 
equitably  derived  from  the  judgment 
plaintiff,  before  the  attorney  could  be 
permitted  to  proceed  with  the  suit. 
Mc Alexander  r.  Wright,  3  T.  B.  Mon. 
(Ky.)   189,  16  Am.  Dec.  93. 

Nonpayment    of    License    Fee. — In 


Harrington  f.  Edwards,  17  Wis.  586, 
84  Am.  Dec.  768,  "There  was  no  error 
in  overruling  the  defendant's  objec- 
tion to  the  appearance  of  the  plain- 
tiff's attorney,  and  the  motion  for  a 
nonsuit  made  because  the  attorney 
had  not  paid  for  and  procured  an  at- 
torney's license  from  the  government 
of  the  United  States.  The  judge  re- 
fused to  investigate  that  matter,  and 
he  was  quite  right.  It  is  the  duty  of 
tlie  proper  officers  of  the  United 
States  to  see  that  the  revenue  is  col- 
lected and  the  penalties  for  disobedi- 
ence enforced,  and  not  a  matter  which 
thus  directly  concerns  the  courts  or 
jurisdictions   of  the   state." 

20  Mexico  V.  De  Arangoiz,  5  Duer 
(N.  Y.)  643;  McBurnett  v.  Lampkin, 
45  Tex.  Civ.  App.  567,  101  S.  W.  864; 
Delhi  r.  Graham,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.)  407. 
In  the  case  last  cited  the  court  said: 
"The  defendant  moves  to  stay  the 
plaintiff's  proceedings,  on  the  ground 
that  the  attorney  is  not  authorized  to 
bring  the  action.  The  instances  in 
which  such  relief  is  proper,  are  rare. 
They  should  probably  be  limited  to 
tliose  in  which  there  is  an  actual 
fraud  on  the  court;  in  which  an  at- 
torney, without  the  knowledge  or  con- 
sent of  a  plaintiff,  is  using  liis  name 
in  a  wrongful  manner.  Generally  it 
is  best  that  only  the  plaintiff  himself 
should  be  allowed  to  complain  that 
the  action  is  witliout  his  authority, 
and  that  his  silence  on  this  point 
should  be  considered  to  give  consent." 

In  Kelso  v.  Stigar,  75  Md.  378,  24 
Atl.  18,  it  was  held  that  when  an  at- 


430 


AUTHOKITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§     238 


information  and  Ixdief.  without  stating  the  grounds  of  belief,  is 
not  sufficient.^  Of  course  if  the  objection  is  made  bv  the  party 
represented,  he  need  show  nothing  more  than  want  of  authority  in 
the  attorney' ;  ^  and  even  though  he  had  given  authority  originally, 
he  can  apply  for  a  substitntion.^  A  motion  by  the  plaintiif  to 
require  an  attorney  appearing  for  certain  defendants  to  prove  his 
authority  is  addressed  largely  to  the  discretion  of  the  trial  court.* 

§  238.  Time  to  Object.  —  Where  the  adverse  party  desires  to 
question  the  authority  of  the  attorney  who  appears  for  his  oppo- 
nent he  should  do  so  promptly,^  at  the  earliest  opportunity,^  other- 
wise he  waives  his  right  to  object."^  What  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a 
sufficient  celerity  varies  in  the  several  jurisdictions,  and  may  de- 
pend somewhat  on  the  facts.  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  objection 
should  be  made  before  the  attorney's  right  to  appear  has  been  rec- 
ognized by  proceedings  in  the  cause,*  that  is,  as  soon  as  it  becomes 
known  that  an  appearance  has  been  entered,  or  at  the  first  term 
thereafter,^  and  before  any  action  has  been  taken  with  knowledge 


torney  brings  a  suit,  or  takes  upon 
himself  to  appear  for  a  party,  the 
c'ourt  will  not  look  furtlier,  but  act 
uj)on  thf  presumption  that  tlie  at- 
torney lias  authority  for  his  action, 
unless  tiiere  iias  been  fraud  or  im- 
position practiced,  or  the  party  him- 
self has  made  objection  to  the  use  of 
I  lis  name. 

1  Standefer  r.  Dowlin,  Ilempst.  209, 
22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,284a;  Murphy  v. 
Byrd,  Hempst.  211,  17  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
n,947a;  People  v.  Mariposa  Co.,  39 
Cal.  683;  Louisville,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Newsome,  13  Ky.  L.  Rep.  174;  Bonni^- 
foy  V.  Landry,  4  Rob.  (La.)  23;  Camp- 
In!  1  /•.  Areciiaux,  3  La.  Ann.  5.58; 
Watrous  v.  Kearney,  79  N.  Y.  49(); 
Wright  V.  Allen,  26  Wis.  (iOl. 

zncjlii  V.  Craham,  3  lliin  (N.  Y.) 
407. 

iiivo.  supra,  §§  113-150. 


*  Beecher  r.  Henderson,  4  Ala.  App. 
543,  58  So.  805. 

5  State  V.  Harris,  14  N.  D.  501,  105 
N.  W.  621. 

6  Mix  v.  People,,  110  111.  265,  4  N.  E. 
783. 

A  defendant  has  the  riglit  to  pre- 
sume that  the  suit  was  authoritatively 
commenced,  and  hence  his  motion  to 
dismiss  immediately  after  discovering 
want  of  autiiority,  is  in  time.  Bell  r. 
Farwell,  189  111.  414.  59  N.  E.  955, 
affirminr/  89  111.  App.  638. 

7  Doe  r.  Abbott,  152  Ala.  243.  44  So. 
637,  126  Am.  St.  Rep.  30:  Louisville, 
St.  L.  (t  T.  R.  Co.  r.  Newsome,  13  Ky. 
L.  Rc]).  174:  Siiiinions  r.  Jacobs,  52 
Me.  147:  State  r.  Harris,  14  N.  1).  501, 
105  N.  W.  621.     And  see  i)ifra.  S  242. 

8  Reece  /).  Reece,  66  N.  C.  377. 
^V}\it(d    States. — Rogers    r.    Crom- 

melin,    1   Cranch    (C.  C.)    536,  20  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  12,009. 


§  238] 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


431 


of  the  appearance;  e.g.  before  tbe  answer,^"  or  plea/^  has  been 
hied.  It  is  certainly  too  hite  to  object  at  the  trial/^  after  final 
judgment,"  or  on  appeal."  The  party  for  whom  the  appearance 
has  been  entered,  if  without  knowledge  of  that  fact,  may  object  at 
any  time  on  being  informed  thereof,  even  after  judgment.  But  a 
suitor  who  does  not  disclaim  the  authority  of  an  attorney  who 
assumes  to  represent  him  in  an  action  after  he  has  acquired  knowl- 
edge thereof,  cannot  do  so  afterwards.  He  cannot  take  the  hazard 
of  a  trial  and,  when  unsuccessful,  allege  as  ground  for  vacating  the 
judgment  that  the  attorney  who  conducted  the  trial  had  no  author- 
ity.^^ 


Maine. — Knowiton  v.  Plantation  No. 
4,  ]4  Me.  20;  Prentiss  v.  Kelly,  41 
Me.  436. 

y^eir,  Hampshire. — Beckley  v.  New- 
comb.  24  N.  H.  359. 

yew  York. — Treachvell  v.  Bruder,  3 
E.  D.  Smith  597;  Silkman  v.  Boiger, 
4  E.  D.  Smith  236. 

North  Carolina. — Reece  v.  Reece, 
66  N.  C.  377. 

10  Rowland  t'.  Gardner,  69  N.  C.  53, 

iiFirst  Parish  in  Sutton  v.  Cole,  3 
Pick.  (Mass.)  232;  Hirshfield  v. 
Landman,  3  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.)  208; 
Mercier  v.  Mercier,  2  Dall.  (Pa.)   142, 

1  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  324;  Campbell  V. 
Galbreath,  5  Watts  (Pa.)  423;  Sheetz 
V.  Wlutaker,  7  W.  N.  C.    (Pa.)    570. 

12  ,4 /a 6o/«o.— Doe  v.  Abbott,  152 
Ala.  243,  44  So.  637,  126  Am.  St.  Rep. 
30. 

Colorado. — Abbott  v.  Williams,  15 
Colo.  512,  25  Pac.  450. 

Indiana. — Indiana,  B.  &  W.  R.  Co. 
V.  Maddy,  103  Ind.  200,  2  N.  E.  574. 

Michigan. — Dehn  r.  Dehn,  170 
Mich.  407,  136  N.  W.  453. 

Xew  York. — People  v.  Lamb.  85 
Hun  171,  32  N.  Y.  S.  584. 

Vermont. — Spaulding  c.  Swift,  18 
Vt.  214. 

^3  Connecticut. — Cockran  v.  Lei&ter, 

2  Root    348. 


Illinois. — Williams  iK  Butler,  35 
111.  544. 

Kentucky. — Noble  v.  State  Bank,  3 
A.  K.  Marsh.  263;  Talbot  r.  McGee, 
4  T.  B.  Mon.  378. 

Missouri. — Clark  v.  Holliday,  9 
Mo.   711. 

Xcio  York. — Tabor  v.  GilfilaTi.  58 
Hun  608  mem.,  34  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
628. 

North  Dakota. — Van  Gordon  r. 
Goldamer,  16  N.  D.  323,  113  X.  W. 
009. 

Texas. — Fowler  v.  Morrill,  8  Tex. 
153. 

14  Noble  V.  State  Bank.  3  A.  K. 
Marsh.  (Ky.)  262;  O'Fynn  v.  Eagle, 
7  Mich.  306;  Baldwin  v.  Foss,  14  Neb. 
455,  16  N.  W.  480;  White  v.  Merriam, 
16  Neb.  96,  19  N.  W.  703;  IMcllhenny 
V.  Binz,  80  Tex.  1,  13  S.  W.  655,  26 
A.   S.   R.    705. 

15  Florida. — Haddock  r.  Wright.  25 
Fla.  202,  5  So.  813. 

Illinois. — Ruckman  iK  Allwood,  40 
111.    128. 

lona. — Harshey  v.  Blackmarr,  20 
Iowa  161,  89  Am.  Dec.  520  dictum. 

New  York. — Abbett  r.  Blolim,  54 
App.  Div.  422,  66  N.  Y.  S.  838. 

North  Carolina. — Weaver  v.  Jones, 
82   N.    C.   440. 

North   Dakota. — Bacon    v.  Mitchell, 


432 


AUTHOEITY    TO    ArPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§   239 


§  239.  Evidence.  —  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  party  at- 
tacking the  attorney's  authority  to  appear/^  and  he  must  over- 
come the  presumption  which  attaches  to  the  attorney's  official 
position,  otherwise  the  presumption  will  prevail. ■'''  But  where  the 
objector  makes  a  prima  facie  showing,  it  then  devolves  upon  the 
attorney  to  prove  his  authority  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court. ^* 
The  authority  of  an  attorney  to  appear  may  be  proved  in  the  same 
manner  as  any  other  fact  is  proved. '^^     A  written  authority  is,  of 


14  X.  D.  454,  106  N.  W.  129,  4 
L.R.A.(X.S.)    244. 

Pennsylvania.- — Kemerrer  v.  Markle, 
14   Pa.   Co.   Ct.   493. 

16  United  States. — Bonnifield  v. 
Tliorp,  71  Fed.  924;  Aaron  v.  U.  S., 
155  Fed.  8.33.  84  C.  C.  A.  67. 

Alabama. — Stiibbs  v.  Leavitt,  30 
Ala.   352. 

Arkansas. — Weil  v.  Fineran.  78 
Ark.  87,  93  S.  W.  568;  Broadway  v. 
Sidway,  84  Ark.  527,  107  S.  W.  163. 

California. — People  v.  Wefitern 
Meat  Co.,  13  Cal.  App.  539,  110  Pac. 
338. 

Illinois. — Famous  Mfg.  Co.  r.  Wil- 
cox, 180  111.  246,  54  N.  E.  211. 

Kansas. — Reynolds  v.  Fleminfj,  30 
Kan.  106,  1  Pac.  61,  46  Am.  Rep.  86; 
Reynolds  r.  Fleming,  30  Kan.  114. 

Louisiana. — IMassicu's  Succession, 
24   La.   Ann.  237. 

Michigan. — O'Flynn  f.  Eagle,  7 
Mich.  306. 

Missouri. — Patterson  r.  Yancey,  97 
Mo.  App.  681,  71  S.  W.  845;  Bark- 
ley  Cemetery  Assoc,  r.  McCune.  119 
Mo.  App.  349,  95  S.  W.  295. 

\fw  .Jersey. — Mutual  Life  Ins.  Co. 
V.  Pinner,  43  N.  J.  Eq.  52,  10  Atl. 
184. 

\ein  York. — Brewster  v.  Manning, 
6    Hmi   5:J(). 

Oklahoma. — Nohin  r.  St.  I.m.is  & 
S.  V.  U.  Co.,  19  Oida.  51,  91  Pac. 
1128. 


Texas. — Holder  v.  State,  35  Tex. 
Crim.  19,  29  S.  W.  793. 

Wisconsin. — Thomas  r.  Steele,  22 
Wis.  207:  Schlitz  v.  Meyer,  61  Wis. 
418,  21   N.  W.  243. 

17  See  supra,  §  230. 

18  Bell  V.  Farwell,  89  111.  App.  038, 
affirmed  189  111.  414,  59  N.  E.  955; 
Dangerfield  i\  Thruston,  8  Mart.  N. 
S.  (La.)  233;  Whitsell  v.  New  .Jer- 
sey &  H.  R.  R.  &  Ferry  Co.,  68  App. 
Div.  82,  74  N.  Y.  S.  217;  Stewart  v. 
Stewart,  56  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  256; 
Rosenthal  r.  Forman,  115  X.  Y.  S. 
282. 

i9  0sborn  v.  U.  S.  Bank,  9  Wheat. 
738,  6  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  204;  Daughdrill 
V.  Daughdrill,  108  Ala.  321,  19  So. 
185;  Perry  v.  Lord,  111  Mass.  504; 
Andrews  v.  Harrington,  19  Barb.  (X. 
Y'.)    343. 

Collateral  Questions  Will  Not  Be 
Considered. — On  motion  for  informa- 
tion as  to  autliority  of  attorneys  to 
commence  action  in  name  of  a  corpo- 
ration of  another  state,  the  question 
whether  it  lias  ceased  to  exist  under 
tiic  laws  of  tliat  state,  or  whether  the 
person  alleged  to  be  its  president  and 
trustee,  and  to  have  given  them  au- 
tliority, is  such,  or,  being  such,  lias 
]iower  to  authorize  conmiencement  of 
tiie  action,  cannot  be  considered.  Ila- 
v;iiia  (ity  K.  Co.  r.  Ceballos,  25  Misc. 
6(iU,    56    i\.   Y.    S.  360. 


239] 


AUTHORITY    TO    APrKAR    I'OR    LITIGAXTS. 


433 


course,  sufRcient,^°  and  such  authority  may  be  found  in  a  verified 
complaint/  or  in  correspondence  between  the  parties,^  or  in  the 
written  request  of  the  litigant's  agent  to  act  for  his  principal ;  ' 
but  in  those  cases  the  writing  itself  should  be  produced.*    So,  also, 


20  stream  v.  Lloyd,  128  111.  493,  21 
N.  E.  533;  Olmstead  V.  Firth,  60  Minn. 
126,  61  N.  W.  1017:  Stewart  r.  Stew- 
art, 56  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  250;  Grubb  c. 
Serrill,  1  Del.  Co.  Rep.  (Pa.)  141; 
Bridge  v.  Samiielson,  73  Tex.  522,  11 
S.  W.  539. 

Where  a  party  wrote  to  an  attorney 
telling  him  to  "take  hold  of  the  case 
at  once,  and  be  sure  to  stave  it  ofl',"  it 
was  held  that  the  defendant  was  bound 
by  the  appearance  entered  by  the  at- 
torney. Clark  r.  Lilliebridge,  45  Kan. 
567,  26  Pac.  43. 

But  the  fact  that  the  plaintiff 
signed  an  appeal  bond  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  overcome  his  positive  state- 
ment under  oath  tliat  he  has  not  in 
any  manner  authorized  the  commence- 
ment or  prosecution  of  the  suit.  Bell 
r.  Farwell,  89  111,  App.  638,  affirmed 
189  111.  414,  59  N.  E.  955.  See  also 
Gibson  v.  Hitchcock,  35  La.  Ann.  1201. 

.4  mere  clerical  error  in  the  writing 
is  immaterial.  Stream  v.  Lloyd,  128 
111.  493,  21  X.  E.  533. 

1  A  complaint  verified  by  the  plain- 
tiff is,  in  legal  effect,  a  written  re- 
quest to  an  attorney  to  commence  the 
action,  and  a  written  recognition  of 
his  authority  so  to  do,  sufficient  to 
satisfy  a  statute  which  provides  that 
any  written  request  of  the  plaintiff  or 
his  agent,  to  the  plaintiff's  attorney, 
to  commence  the  action,  or  any  writ- 
ten recognition  of  his  authority  so  to 
do,  verified  by  the  affidavit  of  the  at- 
torney, or  any  other  competent  wit- 
ness, is  sufficient  presumptive  evi- 
dence of  such  authority.  Graham  v. 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 28. 


Andrews.  11  Misc.  649,  24  Civ.  Pro. 
263,  32  N.  Y.  S.  795. 

2  Lonisiana. — Hardesty's  Succession, 
Man.  Unrep.  Cas.  111. 

Minnesota. — Eickman  v.  Troll,  29 
Minn.  124.  12  N.  W.  347;  Henderson  v. 
Eckern,  115  Minn.  410,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912D  989,  132  N.  W.  715. 

New  lorA-.— Bush  r.  Miller,  13  Barb. 
481. 

Xorth  Carolina. — See  also  Day  V. 
Adams,  63  X.  C.  254. 

Orer/on. — Buhl  Malleable  Co.  V. 
Cronan,  59  Ore.  242,  117  Pac.  317. 

Letter  from  Third  Person  Asking 
the  A  ttorney  to  Appear. — One  cannot 
prove  his  authority  to  appear  as  at- 
torney for  a  party  in  suit  before  a 
justice,  by  producing  a  letter  from  a 
third  person  asking  him  to  appear; 
nor  will  the  fact  that  the  third  person 
is  liimself  a  lawyer  be  sufficient  to  give 
authority,  if  it  does  not  distinctly  ap- 
pear that  lie  is  attorney  for  the  party. 
Westbrook  v.  Blood,  50  Mich.  443,  15 
X".  W.  544.  See  also  Day  v.  Adams,  63 
X.  C.  254. 

SGrignon  r.  Schmitz,  18  Wis.  620. 

4  Daughdrill  v.  Daughdrill,  108  Ala. 
321,  19  So.  185;  State  v.  Tilghman.  6 
Iowa  496. 

Compare  Lindiieim  r.  Manhattan  R. 
Co.,  68  Hun  122,  22  X.  Y.  S.  685, 
wherein  it  was  held  that  where  the  at- 
torney testifies  that  he  was  employed 
by  letter,  it  is  not  indispensable  tliat 
he  should  produce  the  letter  itself. 
And  see  to  the  same  effect  State  v. 
Tilghman,  6  Iowa  496, 


434 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§   230 


au  attorney's  authority  may  be  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  was  paid 
by  the  party  whom  he  assumed  to  represent ;  *  or  that  he  entered 
his  name  on  the  judge's  docket  as  attorney  for  a  party,  and  that 
with  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  such  party  he  ordered  witnesses 
for  him  iuid  signed  the  prawcipe  book  in  the  clerk's  office  there- 
for ;  ^  or  by  affidavits,  alleging  his  employment,  filed  and  made 
part  of  the  record  in  the  action  in  which  the  judgment  was  ren- 
dered ;  '  or  by  the  affidavit  of  his  client's  agent ;  ^  or  by  certified 
copies  of  the  proceedings  of  the  directors  of  the  corporation  by 
which  he  was  retained.^  The  facts  that  the  attorney  entered  his 
appearance  and  prepared  pleadings  may  also  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration, and  an  instruction  that  a  retainer  must  be  proved  inde- 
pendently of  them  is  calculated  to  mislead  the  jury.^°  An  attor- 
ney is  a  competent  witness  to  prove  his  own  authority,^^  but  his 
testimony  is  not  conclusive,  and  when  overcome  it  must  be  proven 
by  other  legal  evidence.^^  All  that  is  required  to  be  shown  in 
such  cases,  in  the  first  instance,  is  that  the  attorney  has  acted  in 
good  faith,  and  under  an  authority  appearing  to  be  genuine,  even 
though  it  be  informal ;  it  then  devolves  upon  the  party  impeach- 
ing his  authority  to  show  by  positive  proof  that  it  is  invalid,  and 
insufficient  in  substance.^^  Where  the  question  of  an  attorney's 
authority  arises  in  a  jury  trial,  as,  for  instance,  in  an  attack  upon 
a  judgTiient,  or  final  order  or  decree,  any  conflict  of  evidence  raises 


5  Baker  r.  Baker,  9  Cal.  App.  737, 
100  Pac.  892;  Neff  V.  Sravtli,  111  111. 
100. 

^Tligbee  r.  Spaiigler,  127  ^lo.  App. 
220,  104  S.  W.  1143. 

7  Famous  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Wilcox,  180 
111.  240.  54  N.  E.  211. 

8  Hughes  r.  Osborn,  42  Ind.  400. 

9  Miller  r.  Continental  Assur.  Co. 
2.33  Mo.  01,  Ann.  Ca.s.  1012C  102,  134 
S.  \V.    1003. 

lOStilhvcII   /•.   I{a(l;,r,'tt,  22  Ark.  ir.4. 

ni):,ugli(lrili  r.  Dau-lulrilJ,  lOS 
Ala.  321,  19  So.  18.5;  Eickman  c.  Troll, 
29  Ntinn.  124.  12  N.  VV.  347;  Folly  r. 
Smith.  12  X.  J.  L.  140;  CanilV  r. 
Myers,   15  .JohriK.    (X.    Y.)    240;    Tul- 


lock  V.  Cunningham,  1  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
256;  Pixley  v.  Butts,  2  Cow.  (X.  Y.) 
421. 

Where  several  atforncifs  are  em- 
ployed to  represent  the  defendants  in 
an  action,  evidence  of  one  of  the  at- 
torneys that  one  of  the  defendants  did 
not  employ  him  sliows  sufl'iciently  that 
the  attorneys  liad  no  authority  to  ap- 
])ear  for  him.  ratt('r>on  r.  Vaucey,  97 
Mo.  .\]i]i.  OS  I. 

12  Dauohdrill  r.  Dauglidrill.  108  Ala. 
321,  19  So.   185. 

13  Hardin  r.  llo-yo-po-nubby,  27 
Miss.  507;  Low  u.  Settle,  22  VV.  Va. 
387. 


§   -MOJ 


AUTllOJi'ITY    TO    APPEAR    i'OR    LITIGANTS. 


435 


a  question  for  the  deteniiiuation  of  the  jnry;^*  but  where  the 
question  presents  itself  during  the  progress  of  the  cause  in  which 
it  is  alleged  that  he  has  unauthorizcdly  appeared  the  question  is, 
of  course,  one  for  the  eourt.^^  Where,  during  the  pendency  of 
proceedings,  and  after  his  appearance,  an  attorney  procures  from 
his  client  written  authority  to  appear,  it  relates  back,  in  effect,  and 
recognizes  all  that  the  attorney  has  done  in  the  proceeding.^® 

§  240.  Requiring  Proof  of  Authority.  —  A  prima  facie  case 
having  been  made  out,  the  court  will  order  the  attorney  to  prove 
his  authority  to  appear.  The  usual  method  is  to  require  the  filiug 
of  a  warrant  of  attorney,  but  in  some  instances  mere  proof  of  au- 
thority, oral  or  by  affidavit,  will  be  a  sufficient  compliance  with 
the  order.  Frequently  the  matter  is  regulated  by  statute,  which, 
of  course,  must  be  complied  with.^'     The  order  should  state  the 


14  Howard  v.  Smith.  33  Super.  Ct. 
(N.  Y.)  ]24;  Alspaugli  r.  Jones,  64 
N.  C.  29 ;  Henderson  r.  Terry,  62  Tex. 
281;  Fosha  (•.  O'Donnell,  120  Wis. 
336,  97  N.  W.  924. 

15  Colorado. — Williams  v.  Uncom- 
paligre  Canal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22 
Pac.  806. 

Ion  a. — Krause  c.  Hampton,  11  la. 
457. 

Missouri. — Clark  v.  Holliday,  9  Mo. 
711. 

Xew  York. — Carpenter  v.  Allen,  45 
Super.  Ct.  323. 

Pennsylvania. — Newliart  v.  Wolfe, 
2  Penny.  295. 

ISOlmstead  v.  Firth,  60  Minn.  126, 
61  N.  W.  1017. 

17  United  States. — King  of  Spain  r. 
Oliver,  2  Wash.  429,  14  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
7,814;  Standefer  v.  Dowlin,  Hempst. 
209,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,284a. 

A  lahama. — Daughdrill  v.  Daugh- 
drill,  108  Ala.  321,  19  So.  185;  Doe  v. 
Abbott,  152  Ala.  243,  44  So.  637,  126 
Am.  St.  Eep.  30. 

Arkansas. — Tally     V.     Reynolds,     1 


Ark.  99,  31  Am.  Dec.  737;  Cartwell  r. 
Jlenifee,  2  Ark.  356. 

California. — Garrison  v.  McGowaii, 
48  Cal.  592;  Hunter  r.  i3ryant,  98  Cal. 
247,  33  Pac.  51. 

Colorado.  —  Williams  r.  I'ncom- 
pahgre  Canal  Co.,  13  Colo.  469,  22 
Pac.  806;  Colorado  Coal,  etc.,  Co.  r. 
Carpita,  6  Colo.  App.  248,  40  Pac.  248. 

(Jeorpia. — Lester  r.  Mcintosh,  101 
Ga.  675,  29  S.  E.  7. 

///moi"s.— Swift  c.  Lee,  65  111.  336. 

Iowa. — State  r.  Beardsley,  108  Iowa 
396,  79  N.  W.  138. 

Kentucky. — ^IcAlexander  r.  Wright, 
3  T.  B.  Mon.  194,  16  Am.  Dec.  93; 
Belt  V.  Wilson,  6  J.  J.  Marsh.  495,  22 
Am.  Dec.  88. 

Mairie. — Prentiss  v.  Kelly,  41  ]Me. 
436. 

Michioan. — O'Flynn  r.  Eagle,  7 
Mich.  306;  Norberg  v.  Heineman,  59 
:\Iich.  210,  26  N.  W.  481. 

Minnesota. — Smith  r.  Funk,  114 
Minn.  367,  131  X.  W.  377.  And  see 
Farrington  r.  Wright,  1  Minn.  241. 


436 


AUTHOllITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


§   240 


time  and  place  at  which  the  authority  must  be  produced,  filed  or 
proven."  A  statute  providing  that  an  attorney  need  file  his  war- 
rant only  "if  required"  so  to  do,  means  required  by  the  court ; 
and  hence  a  rule  entered  without  leave  of  court,  will  be  discharged 
as  having  been  entered  without  proper  authority.^^  Where  an  at- 
torney instituted  suit  at  the  instance  of  the  plaintiff's  wife  (plain- 
tiff being  at  sea),  and  moved  for  a  commission  to  foreign  parts, 
without  having  filed  his  warrant  of  attorney,  it  was  held  that  the 
commission  might  issue  at  once,  and  a  rule  to  file  the  warrant  be 
made  returnable  at  the  next  term.^°  A  warrant  of  attorney  should 
be  executed  in  accordance  with  the  lex  fori ;  ^  but  an  attorney  hav- 
ing comjDlied  with  a  rule  to  file  his  warrant  of  authority  by  filing- 
one  sufficient  in  form  and  manner  of  execution,  any  alleged  de- 
fects should  be  pointed  out  by  exceptions,  and  it  is  error  to  sum- 
marilv  strike  it  from  the  files.^     No  writ  of  error  will  lie  from 


Missiasippi. — McKionian  r.  Patrick, 
4  How.  333. 

Miftsovri. — Keith  r.  Wilson.  6  INIo. 
435,  35  Am.  Dec.  443;  Valle  r.  Pictoii, 
91  Mo.  207,  3  S.  W.  860,  affirming  1(3 
Mo.  App.  178;  Robinson  r.  Robinson, 
32  Mo.  App.  90. 

\eir  Hampshire. — ^lanchester  Bank 
r.  Fellows.  28  X.  H.  302;  Stevens  v. 
Fuller.  55  X.  If.  443. 

Scir  York. — llollins  v.  St.  Louis  & 
C.  R.  Co.,  57  Ihin  139,  25  Abb.  X.  Cas. 
93,  1 1  X.  Y.  S.  27 :  Xcw  York  City  and 
County  Com'rs  r.  I'urdy,  30  Barb. 
206:  \Vilcox  r.  Clement,  4  Denio  TOO; 
Silkman  r.  Boiger,  4  E.  D.  Smith  236. 

Pennsylvania. — Fisler  r.  Reaeli,  202 
Pa.  St.  74.  51  Atl.  599. 

Hiiiitli  ('(uiiUiia.  -  -\\\i'n  r.  Cireeii,  1 
Bail.'X  L.  44S:  llcllnian  r.  McWiien- 
nir.  3  Uicli.   I,.  304. 

'/V'nnr.s'.srr.— .loiii's  r.  Williamson,  5 
Cold.  379;  Ex  p.  r;illrspi(  .  :!  Verg.  325. 

18  Turner  r.  Davis.  2  Denio  (X.  Y.) 
187,  2  How.  Pr.  86. 

Wdinml  of  Atloni'fi  Defined. — .\ 
\v:iii:int   <,f  atlnriiev   is  an   instruiiK^nt 


authorizing  an  attorney  at  law  to  ap- 
pear in  behalf  of  its  maker.  Treat  r. 
Tolman,  113  Fed.  892,  51  C.  C.  A.  522, 
affirm  in  fi  106  Fed.  679. 

19  Com.  r.  Serfass,  5  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  139, 
3  Del.  Co.  Rep.  418. 

20  Boutlier  r.  Jolinson,  2  Browne 
(Pa.)    17. 

1  Com.  /•.  Peterson,  1  Pa.  L.  J.  Rej). 
482,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  154. 

In  Fisler  r.  Reach,  202  Pa.  St.  74, 
51  Atl.  r)\)'.).  it  was  held  that  a  statu- 
tory reepiirement  to  the  effect  that 
every  attorney,  if  called  on  to  do  so, 
shall  "lih'  liis  warrant  of  attorney  in 
the  olliee  of  tlie  jirotlioiiotary,  or 
clerk  of  tht'  court  in  which  sucli  action 
shall  be  dependent,"  was  not  met  by 
pioof  that  the  action  was  originally 
i)r(tu!;lit  ;vitli  the  consent  of  the  plain- 
(ilV,  as  the  act  recpiired  a  specific  form 
of  proof  to  be  filed  in  order  tliat  the 
liiiht  miiilit  be  clearly  and  iiulisputa- 
bly  shnwii,  and  tliis  requirement  could 
not  l)e  dispensed  with. 

2  Danville,  H.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Rhodes, 


§  241] 


AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


437 


an  order  of  the  court  refusing  to  permit  an  attorney  to  appear  in 
a  canse  for  want  of  authority.^ 

§  241.  Consequences  of  Unauthorized  Appearance. — 
Where  an  attorney  appears  in  a  cause  with(nit  authority,  tlie  court 
Avill  grant  such  relief  as  the  circumstances  may  justify.  In  some 
jurisdictions  the  proper  course  is  to  stay  the  proceedings;  *  indeed, 
in  those  states,  the  rule  to  file  a  warrant  of  attorney  works  of  it- 
self a  stay  of  proceedings.*  But  an  order  staying  all  proceedings 
until  the  attorney  proves  his  authority  is  bad ;  it  should  merely 
stay  all  proceedings  by  the  unauthorized  attorney.^  So,  also,  pro- 
ceedings    instituted     by     such     attorney     may     be     dismissed.' 


180  Pa.  St.  1.57,  36  Atl.  648.  40  W.  X. 
C.  5. 

It  is  not  essential  that  an  attoi'ney's 
warrant  of  autliority  to  conduct  the 
proceedings  for  his  client  shall  be 
under  seal.  Any  written  authority 
empowering  him  to  act  is  sufficient. 
Grubb  r.  Serrill,  1  Del.  Co.  Rep.  (Pa.) 
141. 

Clerical  Error. — The  autliority  being 
to  prosecute  an  action,  it  is  imma- 
terial that  by  a  clerical  error  the 
name  of  a  wrong  county  is  inserted  in 
the  written  recognition,  as  such  suit 
can  only  be  commenced  where  the 
land  lies.  Strean  v.  Lloyd,  128  111. 
493,  21  N.  E.  533. 

3  Ex  p.  Gillespie,  3  Yerg.  (Tenn. ) 
.32,5. 

4  Meyer  /•.  Littell.  2  Pa.  St.  177; 
Danville,  H.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r.  Rhodes, 
ISO  Pa.  St.  157,  36  Atl.  648.  See  also 
Hubbart  r.  Phillips,  13  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)  702;  Hudson  River  W.  S.  R. 
Co.  V.  Kay,  14  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  (N.  Y.) 
191;  Howard  v.  Howard,  11  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  SO;  Rosenthal  v.  Forman,  115 
N.  Y.  S.  282. 

Cow  pare  American  Ins.  Co.  r.  Oak 
ley,  9  Paige  (N.  Y.)  496,  38  Am.  Dec. 
561,  holding  that  whtre  a  party,   for 


whom  a  regularly  licensed  solicitor 
assumes  to  act.  denies  his  authority, 
and  applies  to  the  court  for  relief,  be- 
fore the  adverse  party  has  acquired 
any  rights  or  suffered  any  prejudice 
in  consequence  of  the  acts  of  such 
solicitor,  the  court  may  correct  the 
proceeding;  but  if  the  adverse  party 
lias  acquired  rights,  or  been  subjected 
to  costs,  by  proceedings  in  tlie  name 
of  a  party  who  denies  the  autliority 
of  the  solicitor  by  whom  the  proceed- 
ings have  been  conducted,  the  proceed- 
ings will  be  permitted  to  stand. 

Where  piocoss  is  served  upon  a 
party,  and  there  is  an  appearance  by 
an  unautliorized  attorney,  the  party 
will  not  be  relieved  if  the  attorney  is 
responsible.  Allen  r.  Stone,  10  Barb. 
(N.  Y.)   547. 

5  Reese  v.  Church  of  the  Messiah,  1 
W.  N.  C.  (Pa.)  416;  Dunn  v.  Stone 
Co.,  11  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   95. 

C  Farrington  c.  Wright,  1  Minn.  241. 

7  California. — Turner  r.  Caruthers, 
17  Cal.  431. 

lUiuoiti. — Anonymous,  11  111.  488; 
Frye  r.  Calhoun   County,  14  111.  132. 

foica. — Savary  r.  Savary,  3  Iowa 
271. 


438 


AUTHOEITY   TO   APPEAR   FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§   242 


Tlie  inexcusable  entry  of  unauthorized  appearances  is,  fortunate- 
ly, decidedly  infrequent.  It  undoubtedly  tends  to  bring  the  ad- 
ministration of  justice  into  disrepute,  and  has  been  deemed,  in  one 
state  at  least,  a  contempt  of  court ;  *  and  a  practice  of  that  charac- 
ter would,  in  most  states,  be  considered  cause  for  disbarment.^ 


§  242.  Waiver  of  Objection.  —  The  right  to  object  to  an  ap- 
pearance on  the  ground  that  it  is  unauthorized  may  be  waived.^" 
Such  a  waiver  may  be  predicated  on  the  pleading  of  the  general 
issue/^  or  by  the  service  of  papers,^^  without  raising  an  objection ; 
or  by  failing  to  object  in  due  time,^^  And  where,  on  the  revival  of 
an  action  after  the  death  of  the  plaintiff,  the  subsequent  proceed- 
ings were  taken  in  the  name  of  the  executor  by  the  same  attorney 
who  had  acted  for  the  plaintiff",  and  acquiesced  in  by  the  executor, 
the  defendant  cannot  object  to  the  attorney's  authority.-^*  So,  in 
the  absence  of  any  notice  or  order  of  substitutiou,  where  the  record 
shows  that  an  attorney  has  been  acting  for  a  party  all  through  the 
case  except  in  the  filing  of  the  original  answer,  and  has  been  rec- 


Koituckij. — Belt  r.  Wilson,  0  J.  J. 
:Marsli.  495,  22  Am.  Doc.  88. 

Missouri. — Keitli  v.  Wilson,  6  Mo. 
435,  35  Am.  Dec.  443. 

.Yew  York. — Lindheim  r.  Manhat- 
tan R.  Co.,  68  Hun  122,  22  N.  Y.  S. 
685. 

Unauthorized  Fill  up  of  Deynurrer. — 
Where  an  attorney,  without  author- 
ity, files  a  demurrer,  or  other  such 
pleading,  tlie  defendant  will  not  th<'re- 
by  lose  his  rij^lit  to  witiidraw  this  de- 
murrer, and  to  Die  aiiotlier  at  the 
next  term  of  court  in  its  stead.  Win- 
terstien  r.  VYalker,  10  Iowa    l!»8. 

8  "Any  attorney  appearinj^  for  a 
j)erson  witJHiut  heinff  employed,  unless 
hy  leave  of  the  court,  is  jzuilty  of  a 
eontemjjt  of  court,  and  must  be  fined 
in  a  sum  not  less  tlian  live  hundred 
dollars."     CJa.  Code   (  l!)ll),  sec.  4!)(i(». 

9  See  infra,  §  8  Hi. 

10  I)(.e   /.    .\l)l)ott.    152   Ala.    243,   44 


So.  637,  120  Am.  St.  Rep.  30;  Bishop 
V.  Bishop,  30  Abb.  N.  Cas.  296,  24  N. 
Y.  S.  888;  Marrow  v.  Brinkley,  85  Va. 
55,  6  S.  E.  605. 

11  Lucas  V.  Georgia  Bank,  2  Stew. 
(Ala.)  149;  Campbell  r.  Galbreath,  5 
Watts  (Pa.)  423.  And  see  Herrell  r. 
Prince  William  County,  113  Va.  594, 
75  S.  E.  87. 

Compare  Westhrook  r.  Blood,  50 
Mich.  443,  15  N.  W.  544,  wlierein  it 
was  said,  in  construing  the  Michigan 
statute,  that  it  would  be  rash  to  say 
that  the  putting  in  a  i)lea  by  one  v/lio 
turns  out  to  have  no  authority  would 
be  sullicii'iit  to  take  away  the  force  of 
the  provision. 

12  Smith  r.  Smith,  145  Cal.  615,  79 
Pac.  275;  Fanning  c.  Minnesota  R. 
Co.,  37  Iowa  379. 

13  See    supra.    §    238. 

14  l-'isher  r.  Musick,  72  S.  W.  787,  24 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1913. 


24^] 


AUTllOKITY    TO    APl'KAK    b'Oll    LITIGAATS. 


439 


ognizcd  as  such  by  the  court  and  the  opposing  counsel,  it  cannot 
be  said  that  he  was  not  the  attorney  of  record  in  the  action.^*  So, 
also,  where  the  party  for  whom  the  appearance  has  been  entered 
ratifies  the  act  of  the  attorney  who  ])resnmed,  imauthori/.edly,  to 
appear  for  him,  he  thereby  waives  his  right  to  object  afterwards 
to  the  acts  of  such  attorney ;  having  ratified  them,  he  must  abide 
the  consequences.^^  The  general  subject  of  ratification  has  been 
considered  elsewhere." 


Effect  of  Unauthorized  Appearance  after  Juclcjnient. 

§  243.  Generally.  —  The  general  rule  is  that  a  party  against 
whom  a  judainent  has  been  entered  in  consequence  of  the  unau- 
thorized appearance  of  an  attorney,  will  be  afforded  relief  either 
by  motion  in  the  original  proceeding,"  or  by  a  bill  in  equity  either 


15  Hoppin  V.  First  Xat.  Bank,  25 
Xev.  84,  56  Pac.  1121. 

i^United  States. — Robb  v.  Vos,  155 
U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct.  4,  39  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
52. 

Arkansas. — Hines  r.  Stcphons,  90 
Ark.  518,  119  S.  \^'.  064. 

California. — Scale  r.  ^IcLauglilin. 
28  Cal.  G68;  Smith  r.  Smitli,  145  Cal. 
615,  79  Pac.  275. 

District  of  Columbia. — -Ilutcliins  c. 
Munn,  28  App.  Cas.  271,  affirmed  209 
U.  S.  246.  28  S.  Ct.  504.  52  U.  8.  (L. 
cd.)    776. 

Illinois. — Strong  v.  Smith,  9S  [11. 
App.  522. 

loica. — Ryan  v.  Doyle,  31  la.  53. 

Kansas. — Dresser  r.  Wood,  15  Kan. 
344. 

Louisiana. — Alason  r.  Stewart,  6 
La.  Ann.  736;  Simonin  v.  Czarnowski, 
47  La.  Ann.  1334,  17  So.  847. 

Maine. — Strout  V.  Durham,  23  Mo. 
483. 

Missouri. — Southgate  r.  Atlantic  & 
P.  R.  Co.,  61  Mo.  89. 

New  Yorfc.— Ward  v.  Rov,  G9  X.  Y. 


96;  Bogardus  v.  Livingston,  7  Abb. 
Pr.  428. 

Xorth  Dakota. — State  c  Harris,  14 
X.  D.  501.  105  X.  W.  621. 

Pennsylvania. — Miller  v.  Preston, 
154  Pa.  St.  63,  25  Atl.  1041. 

Virginia. — Marrow  r.  Brinkley,  85 
Va.  55,  0  S.  E.  605. 

17  See  SKprrt.  §§  211-214. 

18  United  States.  —  Bonni field  r. 
Thorp,  71  Fed.  928. 

Colorado. — Du  Bois  r.  Clark,  12 
Colo.  App.  220,  55  Pac.  750. 

Illinois. — Lyon  r.  Boilvin,  2  Gil- 
man  629. 

Indiana. — Bush  r.  Bush.  46  Ind. 
70:  Coon  v.  Welborn,  83  Ind.  230; 
Hollinger  v.  Reeme,  138  Ind.  372,  36 
X.  E.  1114,  46  Am.  St.  Rep.  402,  24 
L.R.A.  46. 

Missouri. — Bradley  r.  Welch,  100 
Mo.  258,  12  S.  W.  911. 

Xew  Jersey. — Tones  r.  ^SIcKelway, 
17  X.  J.  L.  345. 

Aeic  York. — Denton  r.  Xoyes,  6 
Johns.  296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237:  Campbell 
r.    Bristol,    19    Wend.    101;     Vilas    v. 


440 


AUTllOKITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


[§   243 


for  the  annulment  of  the  judgment,  or  to  enjoin  its  enforcement/^ 
providing,  of  course,  tliat  the  unauthorized  action  on  the  part  of 
the  attorney  is  clearly  established.^"  The  question  of  an  attor- 
ney's authority  to  enter  an  appearance  is  open  to  proof  on  behalf 


Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y. 
440,  25  N.  E.  941,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  771, 
0  L.R.A.  844;  Post  V.  Charlesworth, 
G6  Hun  256,  21  N.  Y.  S.  168;  Oilman 
r.  Tucker,  57  Super.  Ct.  324,  7  N.  Y. 
S.  682;  New  York  v.  Smith,  61  Super. 
Ct.  374,  48  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  58G. 

0/(J0.— Critchfield  v.  Porter,  3  Ohio 
519;  Abernathy  v.  Latimore,  19  Ohio 
286. 

Pennsylvania. — Cypliert  v.  Mc- 
Clune,  22  Pa.  St.  195. 

Vermont. — Spaulding  r.  Swift,  18 
Vt.  214;  Abbott  v.  Dutton,  44  Vt. 
546. 

'^^  United  Sfaies.— Shelton  i:  Tif- 
fin, 6  How.  163,  12  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  387; 
r.  S.  r.  Tlirockmorton,  98  U.  S.  61, 
25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  93;  Robb  v.  Vos, 
155  U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct.  4,  39  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  52;  Mills  r.  Scott,  43  Fed. 
452. 

Indiana. — Pierson  r.  Plolman,  5 
Blackf.  482;  Wiley  i.  Pratt,  23  Ind. 
628;  Hollingcr  r.  Recnie,  138  Ind. 
372,  36  N.  E.  1114,  46  Am.  St.  Rep. 
402,  24  L.R.A.  46. 

loua. — Ue  Louis  ;;.  Meek,  2  G. 
Greene  55.  50  Am.  Dec.  491;  Powell 
V.  ^iMul'Wu'^,  3  (i.  Greene  443;  Har- 
shey  /;.  lihickmarr,  20  Iowa  161,  89 
Am.  Dec.  520;  Newcomb  /;.  Dewey,  27 
Iowa  381  ;  Parsons  /;.  Nutting,  45 
Iowa  404. 

Kentucky. — Ilandley  r.  Statelor, 
Litt.  Sel.  CaK.   186. 

LouisiatKi. —  Itjdgc  r.  Aldr,  l-l  I, a. 
Ann.  880. 

New  ./rrsii/.  (Ijirord  17.  'iliorn,  9 
N.  .J.  K<|.  702. 


Xeiv  York. — American  Ins.  Co.  r. 
Oakley,  9  Paige  496 ;  Blodget  v.  Conk- 
lin,  9  How.  Pr.  442;  Rrown  v.  Nich- 
ols, 42  N.  Y.  26;  Vilas  r.  Platts- 
burgh, etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  N.  Y.  440,  25 
N.  E.  941,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  771,  9 
L.R.A.  844;  Oilman  v.  Prentice,  11 
Civ.  Proc.  310,  3  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  544. 

Ohio. — Pillsbury  v.  Dugan,  9  Ohio 
118,  34  Am.  Dec.  427. 

Oregon. — Handley  v.  Jackson,  31 
Ore.  552,  50  Pac.  915,  65  Am.  St.  Rep. 
839. 

Tennessee. — Boro  v.  Harris,  13  Lea 
37:  Jones  V.  Williamson,  5  Coldw. 
375;  Coles  v.  Anderson,  8  Humph. 
490 ;  Courtney  c.  Dyer,  1  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
134   Abstract. 

In  Vilas  v.  Plattsburgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
123  N.  Y.  440,  25  N.  E.  941,  20  Am. 
St.  Rep.  771,  9  L.R.A.  844,  it  was  said 
that  relief  from  a  judgment  rendered 
against  a  party  upon  the  unauthor- 
ized appearance  of  an  attorney  in  his 
name,  in  the  absence  of  special  cir- 
cumstances necessitating  a  resort  to 
a  court  of  equity,  may  be  sought  only 
by  motion  in  the  action  in  whicli  the 
unauthorized  appearance  was  entered. 

20  Jones  r.  Williamson,  5  Coldw. 
(I'enn.)   :i7l. 

In  Ihirshey  r.  Blackmarr,  20  la. 
161.  IS.-),  89  Am.  Dec.  520,  the  court 
said:  "In  all  cases,  the  riglit  should 
be  clear,  the  injury  palpable,  and  the 
evidence  convincing.  Tiie  reason  for 
Ihis  is  manifest  in  the  consideration 
that  aftei"  the  lapse  of  time  it  is  very 
rasy  for  a  party  to  say.  and  under  our 
law  to  swear,  that  an  attorni'V  who 
is    p(rhai)s   dead    liad   no  authority   to 


§     '2-i:OJ  ALTliOiaTV    TO    ArrEAK    FOK    LITIGANTS.  44:1 

of  the  judgnient  debtor  Avlierever  an  attempt  is  made  to  enforce  the 
judgment.^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  a  judgment  in  one  state 
agaiust  two  defendants,  one  of  whom  is  an  inhabitant  of  another 
state,  and  was  not  served  with  process,  nor  his  property  attached, 
and  who  did  not  authorize  any  appearance  in  his  behalf,  may  be 
reversed,  as  to  him,  by  writ  of  error,  although  the  record  states 
that,  at  the  term  at  which  the  action  was  entered,  the  defendants 
came  by  their  attorney.^  So  it  has  been  held  that  in  a  petition 
for  the  review  of  an  action  in  which  the  defendant  was  absent 
from  the  state  and  had  no  notice  of  the  suit,  but  in  which  an  at- 
torney at  law  appeared  and  continued  to  act  until  judgment  was 
rendered,  it  is  competent  for  the  petitioner  to  prove  by  parol  that 
the  attorney's  appearance  was  without  his  knowledge  or  authority, 
and  if  that  fact  is  established  the  appearance  can  in  no  way 
legally  aifect  him.^  Audita  querela  will  not  lie.*  In  all  cases  the 
rights  of  innocent  third  persons  will  be  protected.^ 

Under  the  old  English  rule,  however,  the  validity  of  the  judg- 
ment is  recognized,  and  relief  will  only  be  granted  where  the  at- 
torney, upon  whose  unauthorized  appearance  the  judgment  rests, 
is  insolvent ;  if  he  is  a  responsible  person  the  party  will  be  obliged 

represent    him.    and    correspondingly  4  in  Abbott   r.   Button,   44  \t.   o4i;, 

difficult  for  the  other  party   to  show  8   Am.   Rep.  394,  the  court  said:    "If 

the    contrary.          The   true    inference  the    party    has    any    remedy    for    tlie 

from   this   is,    not   to   hold   the  unau-  unauthorized    appearance    of    an    at- 

thorized    judgment    valid,    but    to    re-  torney,  other  than  his  remedy  against 

quire  the  party  assailing  it  to  make  the  attorney,  it  is  by  application  di- 

a  clear  case,  and  to  hold  that  a  mixed  rectly    to    the    court    which    rendered 

case  will  not  do."  the    judgment    against    him    on    the 

1  Korman  v.  Grand  Lodge,  etc.,  44  unauthorized  appearance  of  the  at- 
Misc.  564,  90  N.  Y.  S.  120.  torney,  or  by  writ  of  error,  and  not  by 

2  Bodurtha  v.  Goodrich,  .3  Gray  audita  querela.  Spaulding  r.  Swift, 
(Mass.)    508.  18  Vt.  214." 

3McNamara   v.   Carr,    84   Me.   299,  5  Harshey  f.  Blackmarr.  20  la.  161, 

24  Atl.  856.  89  Am.   Dec.  520;    American  Ins.  Co. 

Compare     Floyd     County     Agricul-  r.    Oakley,     9    Paige     (N.     Y.)     496; 

tural,    etc.,   Assoc,    v.    Thompkins,    23  Hatcher  v.  Faison,  142  N.  C.  364,  55 

Ind.    348,   352,    wherein    it   was    held  S.  E.  284:  Thomas  v.  Jarden,  57  Pa. 

that  the  party  for  whom  an  attorney  St.  331. 

has  appeared   without  authority  can-  In   U'illiams   v.  Johnson.  112  X.  C. 

not  obtain  relief  in  proceedings  for  re-  424.  ITS.  E.  496,  34  Am.  St.  Rep.  513, 

view.  21  L.R.A.   848,  it  was  held  that  par- 


442 


AUTllOIilTY    TO    APPEAR    lOll    LITIGANTS. 


[§   244 


to  look  to  him: 
this  coimtry.' 


this  rule  is  followed  in  some  jurisdictions   in 


§  244.  Domestic  Judgment.  —  As  stated  in  the  preceding  sec- 
tion, the  prevailing  rule  in  this  country  is  that  a  judgment  pro- 
cured by  virtue  of  an  unauthorized  appearance  is  absolutely  void; 
and  upon  proper  objection,^  and  sufficient  proof,^  the  party  for 
whom  the  unauthorized  appearance  was  entered  will  be  entitled  to 
relief,^"  providing,  of  course,  that  there  has  been  no  ratification  of 


ties  about  to  acquire  rights  under  the 
judgments  of  courts  are  not  bound  to 
inquire  into  the  authority'  of  the  at- 
torneys who  profess  to  represent  the 
parties;  and  where  such  rights  have 
been  acquired  by  one  who  had  no  no- 
tice of  the  lack  of  authority  on  tlie 
part  of  an  attorney  who  professed  to 
represent  the  owners  in  a  proceeding 
for  the  sale  of  land,  no  evidence  tend- 
ing to  disprove  the  existence  of  such 
authority  ought  to  be  admitted  to 
overthrow  the  rights  so  acquired. 

And  see  Kenyon  r.  Slireck,  52  111. 
382,  wherein  it  was  said  that  the 
court  would  look  with  great  dis- 
favor on  any  application  to  vacate  a 
judgment  on  the  grounds  of  an  un- 
authorized appearance,  where  inno- 
cent third  parties  had  acquired  rights 
under   the  judgment  or  decree. 

6  Anonymous,  1  8alk.  (Eng.)  88, 
wlierein  an  attorney  appeared  without 
authority,  and  juci^iiient  \\as  entered 
against  his  client,  and  the  question 
was  svlietlier  tlie  court  could  set  aside 
the  judgment.  And  it  was  h(>ld  tliat 
'"if  tlie  attorney  he  able  and  respnii- 
siiile.  we  will  not  set  aside  tlie  judg- 
ment. Tlie  reason  is,  because  tlie 
judgment  is  regular,  and  tin'  i)l;iin 
till'  ougiit  not  to  suffer,  for  there  i- 
no  fault  in  iiini ;  but  it'  the  altoiiiev 
be    not    resp()nsil)ie,   or    sn-i|iiciinis,    we 


will  set  aside  the  judgment;  for  oth- 
erwise the  defendant  has  no  remedy, 
and  anyone  may  be  undone  by  that 
means."  And  see  also  Roljson  r. 
Eaton,  1  T.  R.  (Eng.)  62;  Stanhope  r. 
Firmin,  .3  Bing.  N.  Cas.  303,  32  E.  C. 
L.  128;  Hambidge  r.  De  La  Crouee, 
3  C.  B.  742,  .'54  E.  C.  L.  742;  Williams 
r.  Smith,  1  Dowl.  (Eng.)  632;  Doe  r. 
Eyton,  3  B.  &  Ad.  785,  23  E.  C.  L.  185. 
But  this  rule  has  been  criticised 
and  partially,  at  least,  overruled,  in 
a  later  case,  where  this  subject  was 
carefully  considered  and  the  prior 
cases  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
court.  See  Bayley  v.  Buckland,  1 
Exch.  (Eng.),  wherein  Rolfe,  B.,  al- 
luding to  Anonymous,  1  Salk.  (Eng.) 
88,  says :  "The  nonresponsibility  or 
suspiciousness  of  the  attorney  is  but 
a  vague  sort  of  criterion  of  safety  to 
the  defendant,  and  by  the  liypothesis 
the  defendant  is  wholly  without  blame 
and  may  notwithstanding  be  ruined." 

7  See  the  following  section. 

8  See  infra,  §§  234-242.  And  see 
also  tlie  preceding  section. 

9  Reynolds  r.  Fleming,  30  Kan.  1011, 
I  I'ae.  (il  ;  Patterson  r.  Yancey,  97  Mo. 
App.  (iSi.  (>!)4,  605,  71  S.  W.  845. 
And  see  infra,  §  245. 

iOriiitrd  States. —  Hill  r.  .Mendeii- 
iinll,  2!  Wall.  453,  22  V.  S.  ( L.  .-d.) 
tilt);    Sheiton  r.  Tillin,  (i  How.  163,   12 


§   244] 


AUTHORITY     10    AM'EAK.   FOR    LITIGANTS. 


4t;j 


r.  8.  (L.  ed.)  387  (the  Icadint,'  case 
supporting  this  view)  ;  Mills  r.  Scott, 
43  Fed.  452;  Hatch  r.  Ferqiison,  57 
Fed.  966;  Maury  *.'.  Fitzvvater,  88  Fed. 
768.  See  also  Bonnilield  r.  Thorp,  73 
Fed.  924. 

Colorado. — Great  West  Min.  Co.  v. 
Woodmas  of  Alston  Min.  Co.,  12 
Colo.  46,  20  Pac.  771,  13  Am.  St.  Rep. 
204;  DuBois  v.  Clark,  12  Colo.  App. 
220,  55   Pac.   750. 

y>o/.o<a.— Williams  r.  Xotii,  4  Dak. 
360,  31  N.  W.  630. 

(leorcjia. — Dobbins  r.  Dupree,  39  Ga. 
394. 

Illinois. — Truett  v.  Wainwright,  4 
(oilman  420;  Leslie  V.  Fischer,  62  111. 
118:  Bonnell  v.  Holt,  89  111.  71;  An- 
derson r.  Hawhe,  115  111.  33,  3  N.  E. 
506.  Contra  Rust  r.  Frot!iiiig1iam, 
Breese,  331. 

Indiana. — State  r.  Union  Xat.  Bank, 
145  Ind.  537,  44  N.  E.  585.  57  Am.  St. 
Rep.  209. 

loiva. — Powell  r.  Spaulding,  3  G. 
Greene  443;  Potter  r.  Parsons,  14 
Iowa  286;  Harshey  v.  Blackmarr,  20 
Iowa  161,  89  Am.  Dec.  520:  Bryant  r. 
Williams,  21  Iowa  329;  Newcomb  r. 
Dewey,  27  Iowa  381;  Russell  r.  Potta- 
wottamie  County,  29  Iowa  256;  Ma- 
comber  r.  Peck,  39  Iowa  351. 

Kansas. — Reynolds  v.  Fleming,  30 
Kan.  106,  1  Pac.  61,  46  Am.  Rep.  86; 
Newton  First  Nat.  Bank  v.  Wm.  B. 
Grimes  Dry -Goods  Co.,  45  Kan.  510, 
26  Pac.  56:  Pennsylvania  Trust  Co.  r. 
Cowles,  3  Kan.  App.  660,  45  Pac.  605. 

lA)uisiana. — Marvel  v.  Manouvricr, 
14  La.  Ann.  3,  74  Am.  Dec.  424. 

Maine. — McNamara  v.  Carr,  84  ^le. 
299.  24  Atl.  856. 

Man/land. — Taylor  r.  Welslager,  90 
Md.  414,  45  Atl.  478.  See  also  Munni- 
kuyson    v.  Dorsett,  2  Har.  &  G.   374 


(jiolding  that  sucii  ap])earanc('  does 
not  per  se  invalidate  tlie  judgment). 

Missouri. — Bradley  r.  Welch.  100 
Mo.  258,  12  S.  W.  911. 

Xebras/.a. — Kepley  c.  Irwin,  14  Neb. 
300,  15  X.  W.  719;  Winters  v.  Means, 
25  Neb.  242,  41  N.  W.  157,  13  Am.  St. 
Rep.  489 ;  Kirschbaum  v.  Scott,  35 
Neb.  199,  52  N.  W.  1112;  Kaufmann 
r.  Drexel,  56  Neb.  229,  76  N.  W.  559 ; 
Cliicago,  B.,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v.  Hitchcock 
County,  60  Neb.  722,  84  N.  W.  97. 

Neic  Jersey. — Jones  r.  McKelway, 
17  N.  J.  L.  345;  Ward  v.  Price,  25  N. 
J.  L.  225. 

O/i/o.— Critchfield  f.  Porter,  3  Ohio 
519. 

Pennsijlra'niu. — Lawrence  v.  Ruther- 
ford, 1  Pearson  555;  Coxe  r.  Nicholls, 
2  Yeates  546 ;  Bryn  Mawr  Nat.  Bank 
r.  James,  152  Pa.  St.  364,  25  Atl.  823. 
See  also  Cyphert  r.  McClune,  22  Pa. 
St.  195  (holding  that  judgment  is 
good  on  collateral  attack ) . 

Texas. — Cliapman  v.  Austin,  44  Tex. 
133. 

Virginia. — Raub  v.  Otterback,  89 
Va.   645,   16   S.  E.  933. 

Washington. — Turner  r.  Turner,  33 
Wash.  118,  74  Pac.  55. 

West  Virginia. — Neill  r.  McQlung, 
76  S.  E.  878. 

Canada. — Massey  v.  Rapelje,  5  U.  C. 
C.  P.  134;  Roissier  v.  Westbrook,  24 
U.  C.  C.  P.  91  ;  Wright  r.  Hull,  2  Ont. 
Pr.  26. 

Attorney  Exceeding  Authority. — • 
The  doctrine  that  a  domestic  judg- 
ment is  void  when  the  appearance  is 
unauthorized,  and  there  has  been  no 
service  of  process,  does  not  obtain  in 
cases  where  an  attorney,  regularly  em- 
ployed,   has    exceeded    his    autliority. 

Alahaiua. — Collier  v.  Falk,  (jQ  Ala. 
229. 


444 


AUTHORITY    TO    Al'I'EAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


244 


the  luiautliorized  act.^^  This  rule,  however,  is  by  no  means  uni- 
versal. In  several  states  it  is  held  that  an  appearance  by  an  attor- 
ney, whether  for  the  plaintiil"  or  the  defendant,  if  there  is  no  col- 
lusion, may  be  recognized  by  the  adverse  party  as  authentic  and 
valid ;  that  when  an  attorney  appears  for  a  party,  the  court,  in 
case  of  a  domestic  judgment,  looks  no  further,  but  proceeds  as  if 
the  attorney  had  sufficient  authority,  and  leaves  the  party  to  his 
action  against  such  attorney  if  he  is  financially  responsible ;  ^^  and 
this  is  especially  true  where  the  defendant  has  been  served  with 


loicn. — Harshey  c.  Blackinarr,  20 
Iowa  ]6],  89  Am.  Dec.  520. 

Kansa.<>. — ]\IcNeal  v.  Gossard,  (58 
Kan.  ]]3,  74  Pac.  628. 

Nev:  Jersci/. — Ilendricksoii  v.  Hen- 
drickson,   1.5  X.  J.  L.   102. 

Neir  York. — Kramer  v.  Gerlach,  2S 
Misc.  52.3,  59  N.  Y.  S.  8.55. 

11  See  supra,  §§   211-214. 

12  CaUfornia. — Suydam  v.  Pitcher,  4 
Cal.  280;  Holmes  c.  Pioyers,  13  Cal. 
191:  Carpenter  r.  Oakland.  .SO  Cal. 
439.  Compare  Garrison  r.  McGowan, 
48  Cal.  592:  Merced  Co.  V.  Hicks,  67 
Cal.   108,  7   Pac.  179. 

(Icorffin. — Hirsc'i  r.  Fleminfr.  77  Ga. 
594.  3  S.  E.  9. 

Kentucky. — Holbert  r.  Montgomery, 
5  Dana  16;  Derr  /;.  Wilson.  84  Ky.  14. 

Ma.fsacliusetts. — Finneran  /'.  Leon- 
ard. 7  Allen  54,  83  Am.  Dee.  665; 
Siiiitii  r.  Bowditeh,  7  Pick.  137. 

Mirliigdn. — Corbitt  r.  Tiinmcnnan, 
95  Mich.  581,  55  N.  \V.  437,  35  Am. 
St.  Kep.  586. 

.^fissis.sippi. — Scliirlini;  r.  Scites,  41 
Miss.  644. 

Xerafhi. —  Decgaii  r.  Dccgaii,  22  Xcv. 
185.  37  i*:ir.  360,  58  Am.  St.  Hep. 
742. 

Xeir  Ifampfhirc. —  I'mitmi  /•.  Ly- 
ff.nl.  37  \.  11.  512.  75  Am.  Drc.  14  1: 
Siii,\tli  r.  i!iil<-li.  10  X.  11.  363:  Kvcretl 
r.   Will  II. T    I'.aiik,  5S   N.    II.  310. 


yew  FoW.-.— Allen  r.  Stone.  10 
Barb.  547;  -Armstrong  r.  Craig,  18 
Barb.  387 ;  Donolnie  V.  Hungerford, 
]  App.  Div.  528,  37  N.  Y.  S.  628; 
Yates  c.  Horanson,  7  Robt.  12  (cir- 
cnmstances  tending  to  establisli  col- 
Insion — judgment  set  aside)  ;  Hoff- 
mire  r.  Hoffmire,  3  Edw.  173;  Blodget 
r.  Conklin,  9  How.  Pr.  442;  Gilman 
r.  Tucker,  18  Civ.  Pro.  50,  7  N.  Y.  S. 
682;  Powers  c.  Trenor,  3  Hun  3:  Fer- 
guson r.  Crawford,  7  Hun  25;  Palen 
(;.  Starr,  7  Hun  422 ;  ^^■atrous  c. 
Kearney,  11  Hun  584:  Gall  v.  Gall,  45 
Hun  591,  10  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  331; 
Jackson  r.  Stewart,  6  Jolins.  34;  Den- 
ton r.  Xoyes,  6  Johns.  296,  5  Am.  Dec. 
237  (leading  case  on  the  subject); 
(irazebrook  r.  McCrcedie,  9  Wend. 
437;  Adams  r.  Gilbert,  9  Wend.  499; 
Camplicll  r.  Bristol,  19  Wend.  101; 
Reed  r.  Pratt,  2  Hill  64;  Hamilton 
r.  AVriglit,  37  N.  Y.  502:  Brown  v. 
Nichols.  42  N.  Y.  26;  Washborn  r. 
Coke.   144  N.  Y.  287.  39  X.   K.  3SS. 

Xortli,  Carolina. —  itogers  /•.  Mc- 
Keiizie,  81  N.  C.  164:  Kiigland  /•.  (Jar- 
ner,  90  X.  C.  201;  Williams  v.  John- 
son. 112  N.  C.  424,  17  S.  E.  496,  34 
Am.  St.   Rep.  513.  21    I..!!. A.  S4S. 

\<rrii()n1.. — Coit  /'.  Sliclddii,  1  Ty- 
ler 3(1(1;  Xewcoiiil)  /■.  W-vk.  17  \'t.  302, 
44   Am.  Dec.  340;   SiKiiilding  r.  Swift, 


245] 


AUTIIOKITY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS. 


445 


process.^^  The  principle  upon  which  a  judgment  founded  upon  an 
unauthorized  appearance  is  held  to  be  valid,  is  the  necessity  of 
accrediting  judicial  acts  and  records.  Whenever  the  record  of  a 
case  shows  that  there  had  been  an  appearance  by  attorney,  the 
necessary  judicial  implication  must  be  that  the  court  has  decided 
that  the  person  entering  the  appearance  was  authorized  to  do  so.^* 
But  even  in  those  states  relief  will  usually  be  granted  where  the 
adverse  party  has  not  acquired  any  rights  or  suffered  any  preju- 
dice in  consequence  of  the  unauthorized  acts/^  or  where  it  appears 
that  the  attorney  is  irresponsible,^®  or  dead,"  or  where  the  judg- 
ment is  one  against  a  nonresident  who  has  not  been  served  with 
process.^®  So,  also,  the  defendant  will  not  be  confined  to  his  rem- 
edy against  the  attorney  where  the  plaintiff  or  his  attorney  is  a 
party  to  the  wrong, ^^  or  where  the  defendant  is  in  custody  by  rea- 
son of  the  unauthorized  act  of  the  attorney.^" 

§  245.   Foreign  Judgment.  —  As   to  foreign  judgments,   the 


18  Vt.  214:  Abbott  r.  Diitton,  44  Vt. 
546,  8  Am.  Rep.  394. 

13  Fitzgerald  v.  Fernandez,  71  Cal. 
50.5,  12  Pac.  562;  Woodward  r.  Wil- 
lard,  33  la.  542  (case  of  a  foreign 
judgment)  ;  Governor  r.  Lassiter,  83 
X.  C.  43;  Hatcher  r.  Faison,  142  N. 
C.  364,  55  S.  E.  284. 

14  Allen  V.  Stone,  10  Barb.  (X.  Y.) 
547;  Ellsworth  r.  Campbell,  31  Barb. 
(X.  Y.)  134;  Williams  v.  Van  Valken- 
burg,  16  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  147;  Den- 
ton r.  Xoyes,  6  Jolms.  (X.  Y.)  297,  5 
Am.  Dec.  237;  Mcacham  r.  Dudley,  6 
Wend.  (X.  Y.)  514;  Hamilton  v. 
Wright.  37  X.  Y.  502;  Vilas  v.  Platts- 
burgh,  etc.,  Pv.  Co.,  123  X.  Y.  453,  25 
X.  E.  941,  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  771,  9 
L.R.A.  844.  And  see  the  cases  cited 
in   the  preceding  section   at  note  20. 

Compare  Bean  r.  Mather,  1  Daly 
(X.  Y. )  440  {criticising  Denton  v. 
Xoyes,  6  Johns.  (X.  Y.)  297,  5  Am. 
Dec.   237,    and    holding   that   the    ap- 


pearance of  an  attorney  witiiout  au- 
thority is  a  nullity) . 

15  American  Ins.  Co.  r.  Oakley,  9 
Paige    (X.  Y.)    49(5. 

ISBlodget  r.  Conklin,  9  How.  Pr. 
(X.   Y.)    442. 

17  Vilas  r.  Plattslmrgh,  etc.,  R.  Co., 
123  X.  Y.  441,  25  X.  E.  941,  20  Am. 
St.  Rep.  771,  9  L.R.A.  844;  Herbert 
r.  Lawrence,  21  Civ.  Pro.  336,  18  X. 
Y.  S.  95. 

isXordlinger  r.  De  Mier,  54  Hun 
270,  7  X.  Y.  S.  463;  Matter  of  Ste- 
phani,  75  Hun  188,  26  X.  Y.  S.  1039; 
Myers  r.  Prefontaine,  40  App.  Div. 
603,  58  X.  Y.  S.  70;  Vilas  v.  Platts- 
burgh,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  123  X.  Y.  450,  25 
X.  E.  941.  20  Am.  St.  Rep.  771,  9 
L.R.A.  844. 

l9Hambidge  i\  De  La  Crouee,  3  C. 
B.  742,  54  E.  C.  L.  742;  Sterne  r. 
Bentley.  3  How.  Pr.    (X.  Y.)    331. 

20  Hambidge  r.  De  La  Crouee,  3  C. 
B.  742,  54  E.  C.  L.  742. 


UG 


AUTIIOIMTY    TO    APPEAR    FOR    LITIGANTS, 


§   24-5 


general  rule  is  that  the  defendant  may  successfully  defend  an  ac- 
tion thereon  by  showing  that  the  attorney  who  entered  his  appear- 
ance in  the  action  had  no  authority  to  do  so ;  ^  such  a  defense  must, 
of  course,  be  established  as  clearly  as  in  the  case  of  a  domestic 
judgment.^     In  proving  a  foreigTi  judgment,  however,   it  is  not 


1  rnitcd  states. — Sliolton  r.  Tiffin, 
6  How.  164,  12  U.  S.  ( L.  fd.)  387; 
D'Arcy  v.  Ketchum,  11  How.  165,  13 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  648;  Graham  v.  Spen- 
cer, 14  Fed.  603.  See  contra  Field 
r.  Gibbs,  Pet.  (C.  C.)  155,  9  Fed.  Cas. 
Xo.  4,766. 

Alabama. — Kingsbury  v.  Yniostra, 
59  Ala.  320. 

Arkansas. — Eaton  r.  Ponnywit,  25 
Ark.  144. 

Contiecticut. — Aldrich  v.  Kinney,  4 
Conn.  380,  10  Am.  Dec.  151. 

Illinois. — Welch  v.  Sykes,  3  Gilman 
197,  44  Am.  Dec.  689;  Whittaker  v. 
Murray,  15  HI.  293;  Thompson  c.  Em- 
mert,  15  111.  415;  Lawrence  v.  Jar- 
vis,  32  111.  305. 

Indiana. — Sherrard  v.  Xevius,  2 
Ind.  241,  52  Am.  Dec.  508;  Hoylan  v. 
Whitney,  3  Ind.  140. 

Iowa. — Hindman  r.  Mackall.  3  G. 
(ircene  170;  Baltzell  v.  Nosier,  1 
Iowa  588,  63  Am.  Dec.  466;  Harshey 
r.  Blackmarr,  20  Iowa  172,  89  Am. 
Dec.  520. 

Louisiana. — Miller  r.  Gaskins,  3 
Rob.  94;  Walworth  f.  Henderson,  9 
La.  Ann.  339. 

Massachusetts. — Bodurtha  r.  Good- 
rich, 3  Gray  508;  Hall  r.  Williams, 
6  Pick.  232,  17  Am.  Dec.  350;  Glea- 
8on  V.  Dodd,  4  Mete.  333;  Gilman  V. 
(Jilmari,  120  Mass.  26,  30  Am.  Rep. 
646;  Wright  r.  Andrews,  130  Mass. 
149;  Chicago  Title,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Sinitli, 
1H5  .Mass.  366,  70  N.  E.  426. 

Missouri. — Eager  v.  Stover,  59  Mo. 
87;    Napton    v.    Lcaton,   71    Mo.    358; 


l'.radley  r.  Welch,  100  Mo.  258,  12  S. 
W.  911.  See  contra  Warren  r.  Lusk, 
16  Mo.  102;  Baker  v.  Stonebraker, 
34  Mo.  172. 

yew  Jersey. — Ward  r.  Price,  25  N. 
.1.  L.  230. 

Neia  York. — Howard  v.  Smith,  35 
Super.  Ct.  131;  Starbuck  v.  Murray, 
5  Wend.  148,  21  Am.  Dec.  172;  Shum- 
way  r.  Stillman,  6  Wend.  447 ;  Kerr 
r.  Kerr,  41  N.  Y.  272.  Compare  Mid- 
dletown  Bank  v.  Huntington,  13  Abb. 
Pr.  403;  Reed  v.  Pratt,  2  Hill  64; 
Ward   r.  Barber,   1  E.  D.  Smith  423. 

Ohio. — Penny  wit  r.  Foote,  27  Ohio 
St.  600,  22  Am.  Rep.  340. 

Texas. — Norwood  r.  Cobb,  24  Tex. 
551. 

Virginia. — Wilson  V.  Mt.  Pleasant 
Bank.  6  Leigh  570. 

2  See  sup7'a.  §  239. 

A  record  of  the  supreme  court  of 
British  Honduras,  showing  that  tlie 
defendant  corporation  instituted  a 
suit  therein  against  plaintiff,  and 
that  such  defendant  was  represented 
in  tlie  action  by  its  solicitor,  who 
continued  to  so  represent  it  for  a  con- 
siderable time  thereafter,  is  prima 
facie  evidence  tliat  the  action  was  in- 
btilutcd  by  tlie  defendant's  authority. 
and  is  not  rebutted  by  testimony  of 
defendant's  vice-president  that  tlie 
note  on  which  plaintifT  was  sued  liad 
been  turned  over  to  an  agent  for  col- 
lecliou,  wild  took  it  to  lloiidiiras,  and 
died  tlicic;  tliat  lie  had  scutlii'd  for 
the  note,  and  could  not  lind  it;  and 
that  lie  never  iicard  of  anv  suit  being 


§    245]  AUTHORITY    TO    APPEAR   FOR    LITIGA^TTS.  447 

necessary,  in  the  first  instance,  to  show  the  actual  retainer  of  the 
attorney  who  appeared  for  the  defendant.^  Under  the  common- 
law  system  of  pleading  a  defense  to  the  enforcement  of  a  judgment 
on  the  ground  of  an  unauthorized  appearance  must  be  set  up  by 
a  special  plea;  and  the  equivalent  of  such  a  plea  is  required  un- 
der any  system.  The  precise  form  in  which  the  statement  should 
he  made  will  depend  upon  the  practice  of  the  court  in  wdiich  it  is 
to  he  used.^  The  defendant  should  also  show  a  defense  on  the 
merits.^  Speaking  of  the  foregoing  rule,  and  comparing  it  with 
the  cases  which  support  the  view  that  a  domestic  judgment  is  valid, 
and  that  the  defendant  therein  must  look  to  the  attorney,^  one 
court  has  said:  "It  may  be  doubtful  whether  the  .  . 
distinction  between  foreigTi  and  domestic  judgments  is  fully  set- 
tled ;  and  if  so  whether  it  rests  on  sound  principles.  Is  not 
the  gravamen  the  same  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  and 
does  it  not  consist  in  the  authorized  act  of  the  attorney  ? 
We  deem  the  rule  properly  settled  as  to  foreign  judgments. 
AVhy  should  it  not  equally  apply  to  an  action  on  a  domestic  judg- 
ment 'I  The  only  reason  that  occurs  to  us  is,  that  in  the  case 
of  a  foreigii  judgment  it  is  impossible,  or  at  least  unreasonable, 
to  require  the  defendant  to  go  to  the  courts  of  the  state 
which  rendered  it,  and  attack  it  directly  by  a  bill  or  motion ; 
hence,  he  is  permitted  to  plead  the  want  of  authority  in  the  at- 
torney, defensively  and  collaterally.  Whereas  in  the  case  of  a  do- 
mestic judgment  it  may  be  deemed  better  to  force  the  party  to 
assail  it  directly  (thus  giving  the  court  an  equitable  control  over 
the  proceedings),  by  prohibiting  him  from  resorting  to  the  plea 
of  a  want  of  authority  in  the  attorney,  collaterally,  as  a  defense 
to  a  scire  facias,  or  direct  action  on  the  judgment.  If  the  distinc- 
tion is  maintainable,  it  must  be  on  some  such  ground."  '' 

instituted   on   it.     Christian   &   Craft  5  Walsworth    v.    Henderson,    9    La. 

Co.  V.  Coleman,  125  Ala.   158,  27  So.  Ann.  339;   Marx   v.  Fore.  51    Mo.  69, 

786.  11  Am.  Rep.  432. 

3  Davis  V.   Colm,   96   Mo.  App.  587,  6  See  the  preceding  section,  notes  6, 
70  S.  W.  727.  7. 

4  Hill  V.  Mendenhall,  21  Wall.  453,  7  Harsliey  r.  Blackmarr,  20  la.  161, 
22  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   616.  89  Am.  Dec.  520. 


CHAPTER  XIIT. 

AUTHORITY   IN   COXDL  CTIXG   LITIGATION. 

In   General. 

g  246.  Scope   of   Authority. 

247.  Bringing  and  Defending  Suits,  and  Matters  Incidental  Thereto. 

248.  Control  of  Proceedings  in  Court. 

249.  Excluding  Control  by  Client. 

250.  Dismissal,  Discontinuance  and  Retraxit. 

251.  Authority  to  Make  Affidavit  for  Client. 

252.  Authority  to  Incur  Expense. 

Acceptance  of  Service  of  Process  and  Papers. 

253.  Original  Process. 

254.  Subsequent  Notices  and   Other   Papers. 

255.  Manner  of  Service. 

256.  Notice  and  Demand. 

257.  Professional  Relationsliip  Must  Exist. 

Admissions  and  titipulations. 

258.  Admissions. 

259.  Stipulations  Generally. 
200.  In   Matters   of   Procedur(\ 

261.  As  to  Matters  of  Evidence. 

262.  That  One  Suit  Shall  Abide  Decision  of  Another. 

263.  Waiver  of  Client's  Rights. 

264.  Manner  of  Stipulating. 

265.  Admissions  and   Stipulations   Made  under   Mistake  of   Fact, 

'/'rial.  Arbitration  and  Reference. 


266.  Conduct   f>f  'I'lial. 

267.  Arbitration    and    Reference. 


./iiilf/iiirtits  and  Decrees, 


268.  Confession   of  Jiulgmi'iit. 

26!),  Consenting  to  Enti'v  of  .ludgtneiit. 

-148 


§    246]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTIJS'G    LITIGATION.  44 U 

270.  Consenting  to  Entry  of  Decree. 

271.  Assignment  of  Judgment. 

272.  Vacating  Judgment. 

273.  Remittitur. 

274.  Compromise  and  Release. 

275.  Receiving  Payment  and   Entering  Satisfaction. 

Enforcement  of  Judgments  and  Deerees. 

276.  Issuing  Execution  and  Receiving  Payment  thereon. 

277.  Other  Measures  for  Enforcement. 

278.  Instructions  as  to  Enforcement. 

279.  Agreements  in  Connection  with  Enforcement. 

280.  Staying  Execution. 

Proceedings  for  Review. 

281.  Autliority  to  Prosecute  Appeal  and  Error. 

282.  Control  of  Proceedings. 

283.  Waiving  Right  of  Review. 

In  General. 

§  246.  Scope  of  Authority.  —  The  general  scope  of  an  attor- 
ney's authority  has  been  considered  heretofore/  and  consideration 
has  also  been  given  to  his  authority  to  appear  for  litigants,^  to  in- 
cur necessary  expense,^  and  to  accept  service  of  process  and  other 
papers.*  In  matters  pertaining  to  the  conduct  of  litigation,  how- 
ever, the  authority  of  an  attorney  is  more  extensive.  He  is  more 
than  an  agent;  he  is  also  an  officer  of  the  court,  and  within  his 
sphere,  and  in  the  line  of  his  special  powers,  he  is  as  independent 
as  the  judge  of  the  court,  and  has  not  only  his  duties  and  obliga- 
tions to  the  court  and  to  his  client,  but  he  has  rights  and  powers 
entirely  different  from  and  superior  to  those  of  an  ordinary  agent.^ 
Whatever  is  done  by  an  attorney  within  the  apparent  scope  of  his 
authority  in  the  progress  of  the  cause,  is  regarded  as  having  been 

1  See  supra,  §§  199-214.  cannot  consent  to  any  action  binding 

2  See  supra,  §§  229-245.  his  principal  unless  he  is  specifically 

3  See  infra,  §  252.  and  formally  empowered  for  the  very 
*  See  infra,  §§  253-257.  purpose,  and  his  authority  is  pro- 
5  Curtis  V.   Richards,  4   Idaho   434,  duced.      Durfee    v.    Abbott,   50    Mich. 

40   Pac.  57,   95   Am.   St.   Rep.   1.14.  278,  15  N.  W.  454. 

A    layman    acting    as    an    attorney 
Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 29. 


450 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTIXG    LITIGATION. 


[§  246 


done  by,  and  binding  on,  the  party  himself,^  even  though  there 
was  no  specific  authority  therefor,'  or  though  the  attorney  abuse 
his  trust,  and  be  answerable  to  his  client  in  damages ;  *  the  fidelity 
of  the  attorney  in  the  discharge  of  his  trust  being  a  question  be- 
tween him  and  the  party  for  whom  he  undertakes  to  act.^  An 
attorney's  authority  is  not  limited  to  the  mere  prosecution  of  a 
suit;  it  extends  to  everything  necessary  to  the  protection  and  pro- 
motion of  the  interests  committed  to  his  care,  so  far  as  they  are 
to  be  aft'ected  by  the  proceedings  in  the  court  where  he  represents 
his  client. ^°  He  may  do  all  things  incidental  to  the  prosecution 
of  the  suit,  and  which  affect  the  remedy  only  and  not  the  cause 


6  United  States. — Pierce  v.  Strick- 
land, 2  Story  292,  19  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,147. 

California. — Coonan  r.  Loeweiitlial, 
129   Cal.   197.   61    Pac.  940. 

District  of  Columbia. — Brown  v. 
Brown,   7   D.   C.   221. 

Kansas. — Cronkhite  r.  Evans-Sni- 
der-Buel  Co.,  6  Kan.  App.  173.  51 
Pac.   295. 

Kentucky. — Hill  v.  Penn  Mut.  L. 
Ins.  Co.,  120  Ky.  190,  85  S.  W.  759, 
27    Ky.   L.   Rep.    567. 

Maine. — White  v.  Jolinson,  67  Me. 
287. 

Maryland. — Bethel  Church  r.  Car- 
mack,  2  Md.  Ch.  14.3. 

Missouri. — Higbee  v.  Spangler,  127 
Mo.  App.  220,  104  S.  W.   114.3. 

l^ew  York. — Shaft  v.  Plioonix  Mut. 
Life  Ins.  Co.,  67  N.  Y.  544.  23  Am. 
Rep.   138. 

South  Dakota. — State  v.  Frazier, 
26  S.  D.  383,  128  N.  W.  .322. 

Wisconsin. — Lee  r.  Buckheit,  46 
Wis.  246,  49  N.  W.  977. 

7  Lawson  v.  Bettison,  12  Ark.  401; 
Wood  r.  Wood,  59  Ark.  441,  27  S.  W. 
641,  43  Am.  St.  Rep.  42,  28  L.R.A. 
157;  Kent  v.  Ricarda.  3  Md.  Ch. 
392;  State  v.  Lewis,  9  Mo.  App.  321; 
P.il.n    /.    Starr,   7    Hmi    (.\.    Y.)    422; 


Clinton  v.  New  York  Cent.  &  H.  R. 
R.  Co.,  147  App.  Div.  468,  131  N.  Y. 
S.  881;  Beck  V.  Bellamy,  93  N.  C.  129. 

8  White  V.  Johnson.  67  Me.  287; 
Chambers  r.  Hodges.  23  Tex.  104. 

The  fact  that  an  attorney,  author- 
ized to  enter  appearance,  waive  serv- 
ice, and  confess  judgment,  only  en- 
ters the  appearance  and  waives  serv- 
ice, without  confessing  judgment,  and 
allows  a  jury  to  hear  the  evidence 
and  return  a  verdict,  is  not  such  a 
departure  from  the  authority  con- 
ferred by  the  power  as  will  render 
all  tlie  acts  done  under  it  erroneous. 
Stew-art  v.  Hibernian  Banking  Ass'n, 
78  111.  596. 

9  Bethel  Church  v.  Carmack,  2  Md. 
Ch.    143. 

10  Paxton  V.  Cobb,  2  La.  137;  Lives- 
ley   V.    Pier,    11    Wash.   268,   39    Pac. 

The  duty  of  counsel  is  to  advise 
his  client  out  of  court  and  to  act  for 
liim  in  court,  and  until  his  authority 
is  withdrawn  he  has,  with  regard,  to 
all  matters  that  properly  relate  to 
the  conduct  of  the  case,  unlimited 
power  to  do  that  wliich  is  best  for 
liis  client.  Matthews  r.  Munster,  20 
Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.)  141.  57  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
49,  57  L.  T.  N.  S.  922,  36  W.  R.  178, 
52   J.    r.   'J60. 


§    247]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  451 

of  action. ^^  The  omissions,  as  well  as  commissions,  of  an  attor- 
ney, are  to  be  regarded  as  the  acts  of  the  party  whom  he  repre- 
sents, and  his  neglect  is  equivalent  to  the  neglect  of  the  party 
himself. ^'^  The  secret  intentions  of  a  client  can  affect  neither  the 
attorney  nor  those  with  whom  he  transacts  business  for  his  client, ^^ 
nor  are  the  private  instructions  given  by  a  client  to  his  attorney 
binding  on  third  persons  who  have  no  notice  or  knowledge  of 
theni.^*  So,  the  acts  of  an  attorney  outside  the  ap])arent  scope  of 
his  authority  will  not  bind  his  client.^*  The  assumption  by  an  at- 
torney at  law,  even  if  generally  retained,  of  authority  to  act  for  his 
principal  outside  of  the  due  and  orderly  prosecution,  defense,  or 
conduct  of  litigation  or  proceedings  in  courts,  does  not  create  any 
presumption  of  actual  authority  so  to  act,  but  his  acts  must  be 
shown  to  be  within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  else  they  wull  not 
bind  his  principal. ^^  Tt  is  incompetent  to  prove  a  custom  among 
attorneys  to  take  full  and  complete  control  over  the  business  of 
foreign  clients,  and  to  exercise  discretionary  power  in  its  settle- 
ment in  violation  of  the  principles  of  law,  or  contrary  to  the  in- 
terests of  clients." 

§  247.  Bringing  and  Defending  Suits,  and  Matters  Inci- 
dental Thereto.  —  The  authority  of  an  attorney  to  bring  or  de- 
fend an  action,  and  to  do  on  behalf  of  his  client,  in  connection  with 
the  prosecution  or  defense  of  litigation,  such  things  as  are  neces- 

"  Davis   r.  Hall,  90   Mo.  659,  3   S.  Sprague.  71  Mich.  .50,  38  X.  W.  673. 

W.  382.  Minncsofa. — Erskine     v.     Mcllrath, 

i2Beale  r.  Swasey.  106  Me.  35,  20  60  Minn.  485,  62  N.  W.  1130. 

Ann.  Cas.  396,  75  Atl.  134.  il/issowrt.— State     r.     Muencli.    217 

13Mabb    r.    Stewart,    147    Cal.   413,  Mo.    124,   117   S.   W.  25,   129  Am.   St. 

81    Pac.    1073.  Rep.   536. 

14  W.   W.   Kimball   Co.    v.  Payne,   9  Nebraska.  —  Anderson    r.    Henrick- 
Wyo.   441,   64   Pac.   673.  son,  1  Neb.    (unofficial)    Rep.  610,  95 

15  United     States. — Nightingale     v.  N.   W.   844. 

Oregon  Cent.  R.  Co.,  2  Sawy.  338,  18  16  Horseshoe    Min.    Co.    r.    IMiners' 

Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,264.  Ore   Sampling   Co.,    147    Fed.    517.    77 

Illinois. — Nolan   v.  Jackson,  16  111.  C.  C.  A.  213.     See  also  Stone  v.  Rank 

272;    Chicago,    W.    &   V.    Coal    Co.   i).  of   Commerce,    174   U.    S.    412.    19    S. 

Balmer,  45  111.  App.  59.  Ct.  747.  43  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    1028. 

Michigan. — Dnrfee     v.     Abbott,     50  17  Clark   v.  Kingsland,  1   Smedes  & 

Mich.  278,  15  N.  W.  454;  Stewart  v.  M.    (Miss.)    248. 


452 


AUTHOEITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


L§  247 


sary  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  his  employment,  has  been  con- 
sidered generally  in  the  preceding  sections  of  this  subdivision/^ 
and  where  an  attorney  acts  under  the  express  direction  of  his  client 
no  further  discussion  is  deemed  necessary ;  ^^  the  implied  authority 
of  an  attorney  to  bring  or  to  defend  an  action,  however,  depends 
on  the  facts  presented  by  the  individual  case.  Where  both  state 
and  federal  courts  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  of  a  cause  of  ac- 
tion the  attorney  may,  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion,  bring 
the  action  in  either  court,  especially  where  he  has  not  been  in- 
structed by  his  client  in  this  respect.^"  So,  an  attorney  having 
charge  of  a  claim  may  transfer  it  from  the  action  and  decision 
of  such  judges  as  the  client  has  in  the  first  place  selected,  and  sub- 
mit it  to  the  decision  of  other  persons,  and,  in  the  absence  of  proof 
to  the  contrary,  the  legal  presumption  is  that  he  acted  by  authority 
of  the  client.^  An  attorney  employed  to  collect  a  claim  has  au- 
thority to  do  all  necessary  acts  for  the  furtherance  of  his  client's 
interests ;  ^  thus  he  may  bring  suit  on  the  claim,^  or  he  may  issue 
an  attachment  thereon,'*  but  he  cannot  sue  on  the  claim  in  his  own 


18  See  supra,  §§  lOn,  229,  246,  and 
the  cross-references  therein  given  at 
notes. 

19  See  Girard  r.  Hirsch,  6  La.  Ann. 
051  (wherein  counsel  acted  under  a 
power  of  attorney ) .  See  also  Com. 
r.  Louisville  Property  Co.,  128  Ky. 
790,  109  S.  W.  3183,  33  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
225,  wherein  counsel  acted  under  a 
contract    of    employment. 

A  general  authority  to  commence 
suits  will  authorize  an  attorney  to 
commence  a  suit  and  attach  prop- 
erty. Fairbanks  r.  Stanley,  18  Me. 
290. 

When  a  town  enacts  a  by-law  pro- 
viding for  a  law  committee,  consist- 
ing of  the  principal  town  ofTicers,  and 
authorizing  tiieni  to  elect  a  town  solic- 
itor "to  prosecute  all  litigation  to 
whicli  the  town  is  a  party,"  and,  if 
need  he,  employ  special  counsel,  an 
action  brought  by  an  attorney  on  bc- 
jialf  of  tlie  town  on  tli(r  order  of  siicli 


committee  is  tlie  action  of  the  town. 
Clinton  v.  Heagney,  175  Mass.  134, 
55    N.    E.    894. 

20  McGeorge  r.  Bigstone  Gap  Imp. 
Co.,   88   Fed.   599. 

1  Jones  V.  Horsey,  4  Md.  300.  59 
Am.  Dec.  81. 

2  Pierce  r.  Strickland,  2  Story  292, 
19  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  11,147;  Burgess  r. 
Stevens,  76  Me.  559;  Alden  v.  W.  J. 
Dyer  &  Bro.,  92  Minn.  134.  99  N  W. 
784;    Levy  r.  Brown,  56  :Miss.  90. 

3  Alden  r.  W.  J.  Dyer  &  Bro.,  92 
Minn.  134,  99  N.  W.  784;  Scott  r. 
Elmendorf,    12    Johns.     (X.    Y.)     315. 

liringing  Second  Huit. — An  attor- 
ney wlu)  receives  a  note  for  collec- 
tion is  authorized,  by  his  general  re- 
tainer, to  bring  a  second  suit  en  the 
note,  after  being  nonsuited  in  the 
(irst  for  want  of  due  proof  of  the 
execution  of  the  note.  Scott  r.  El- 
mendorf,  12  Joliiis.    (X.  Y.)    31.-,. 

4  Pierce     t'.     Strickland,     2     Story 


247] 


AUTHORITY   IX    CONDUCTING   LITIGATION. 


453 


name,^  nor  does  authority  tr»  institute  legal  proceedings  for  the  col- 
lection of  a  debt  warrant  the  institution  of  a  criminal  prosecu- 
tion.® The  possession  of  a  note  by  the  attorney  for  a  party  is 
possession  by  the  party,  in  so  far  as  the  right  to  sue  thereon  is  con- 
cerned.' So  a  county  solicitor  may,  without  an  express  direction, 
procure  a  mandamus  against  a  municipality  to  compel  the  levy  of 
a  tax  to  pay  a  debt  due  the  county.'  An  attorney  may  also  do  all 
things  incidental  to  the  prosecution  or  defense  of  the  suit,  and 
which  aifect  the  remedy  onl}^,  and  not  the  cause  of  action ;  ^  thus 
he  may  agree  to  an  amicable  action,^"  or  agree  that  a  change  of 
venue  shall  not  be  taken ;  ^^  and  where,  by  statute,  the  original 
writ  must  be  indorsed  by  the  plaintiff,  an  attorney  authorized  to 
commence  an  action  may  indorse  his  client's  name  on  the  writ;  ^^ 
and  it  has  been  held  that  the  authority  of  the  defendant's  attorney 
is  competent  to  restore  an  action  after  non  pros,  without  the  con- 
sent of  his  client.^^  So,  an  attorney  employed  by  a  nonresident  to 
recover  specific  personal  property  has  authority  to  receive  it  for  his 
client.''*    But  in  conducting  legal  proceedings,  as  in  all  other  mat- 


292,   19   Fed.   Cas.  No.   1],147;    Kirk- 
sey   V.  Jones,   7  Ala.  623. 

5  Bryant  v.  Owen,  1  Port.  (Ala.) 
201. 

6  Thompson  v.  Beacon  Val.  Rubber 
Co..  50  Conn.  493,  16  Atl.  554. 

7Kunkel  v.  Spooner,  9  Md.  4G2,  66 
Am.    Dec.   332. 

8  People  V.  Kingston,  101  N.  Y. 
82,  4   N.    E.   348. 

9  Davis  V.  Hall,  90  Mo.  659,  3  S. 
W.  382.     See  also  supra,  §  246. 

Incidental  Condemnation  Proceed- 
ings.— Where  a  statute  creating  a 
public  park  declared  that  the  tracts 
of  land  taken  for  park  purposes 
should  be  "public  places,"  an  addi- 
tion to  the  park  afterwards  made 
was  also  a  public  place,  and  hence 
an  agreement  of  retainer  wherebj'  an 
attorney  was  engaged  to  take  all 
lawful  proceedings  to  obtain  compen- 
sation for  lands,  etc.,  proposed  to  be 
taken  for  the  opening  of  streets,  ave- 


nues, and  "public  places,"  embraced 
proceedings  to  condemn  land  for  an 
addition  to  tlie  pari<.  In  re  Robbins, 
189  X.  Y.  422,  82  X.  E.  501,  reversing 
119  App.  Div.  888,  105  X.  Y.  S.  1140. 

10  Cook  V.  Gilbert,  8  Serg.  &  R. 
(Pa.)  567;  Whitcomb  v.  Kephart,  50 
Pa.  St.  85;  Van  Beil  V.  Shive,  17 
Phila.  (Pa.)  104,  41  Leg.  Int.  154; 
Wilmington  Mills  Mfg.  Co.  V.  Gard- 
ner,  2   W.  X.   C.    (Pa.)    486. 

11  Terre  Haute  Brewing  Co.  v. 
Ward,    (Ind.)    102  X.  E.  395. 

12Chadwick  v.  Upton,  3  Pick. 
(Mass.)  442;  Johnson  v.  Sprague, 
183  Mass.  102,  66  X.  E.  422;  Miner 
r.   Smith,   6  X.   H.  219. 

Contra. — Harmon  v.  Watson,  8 
Greenl.  (Me.)  286.  See  also  Weathers 
K.  Ray,  4  Dana    (Ky. )    474. 

13  Reinholdt  v.  Alberti,  1  Bin.  (Pa.) 
469. 

14  W.  W.  Kimball  Co.  v.  Payne,  9 
Wyo.  441,  64  Pac.  673. 


454  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  [§    247 

ters,  an  attorney's  acts  outside  of  the  apparent  scope  of  his  au- 
thority will  not  bind  his  client  ;^^  thus  a  city  attorney  cannot  bring 
the  corporation  into  court  by  filing  a  brief  in  a  case  in  which  the 
city  is  not  impleaded ;  ^^  so  authority  to  bring  an  action  of  attach- 
ment does  not  authorize  the  attorney  to  appear  for  the  attachment 
plaintiif  in  a  suit  against  him  to  recover  damages  for  unlawfully 
bringing  the  attachment.^'  An  attorney  employed  to  defend  a 
suit  removed  from  a  justice's  court  to  the  common  pleas  by  cer- 
tiorari has  no  authority,  by  virtue  of  his  retainer  for  that  pur- 
pose, to  bring  a  suit  in  the  name  of  his  client  against  the  obligors 
in  the  bond  given  upon  obtaining  the  certiorari.^*  Nor  does  em- 
ployment in  the  principal  case  give  an  attorney  authority  to  ap- 
pear in  a  suit  for  contempt.^^  Where  the  defendant  is  sued  as  an 
individual,  it  will  not  be  presumed  that  his  attorney  has  authority 
to  consent  to  an  amendment  of  the  complaint  seeking  to  recover 
against  him  as  a  receiver.^"  Authority  conferred  upon  an  attor- 
ney to  sue  for  specific  performance  of  a  contract  or  to  quiet  the 
title  to  real  estate  does  not  include  authority  to  sue  only  for  re- 
scission of  the  contract  on  which  his  client's  right  or  claim  is 
founded.^  Counsel  who  undertake  to  defend  a  client  in  a  criminal 
prosecution  do  not  thereby  agree  to  defend  his  bailors  upon  a  scire 
facias  on  the  recognizance.^  An  attorney  for  a  decedent's  estate 
should  not  place  himself  on  record  as  a  petitioner  for  orders  except 
in  cases  of  urgent  necessity.'    A  conflict  of  evidence  as  to  whether 

15  In  re  Cameto,  Myr.  Prob.    (Cal.)  l"  Barnes    V.    Profilet,    5    La.    Ann. 
75;    McCutcheon    V.    Loud,    71    ISiich.       117. 

433,  39  X.  W.  569;  McDowell  r.  Greg-  18  Walradt  r.  Maynard,  3  Barb.  (N. 

cry,  14  Xeb.  33,  14  X.  W.  899;   Allen  Y.)    584. 

r.  Stone.   10   Barb.    (X.  Y.)    547.  19  Pitt    r.    Davison,    37    Barb.     (X. 

A  case  commenced  witliout  tlie  a\i-  Y. )    97. 

tliority    of    an    infant    for    whom    no  20  Kislvine    r.    Mcllratli,    GO    Minn, 

•juardian     ad     litem     was     appointed  485,  02   X.  VV.   1130. 

sboiild      l)e      dismissed      on      motion,  1  Xeill    r.    McClung,    (W.    Va.)     76 

tiiougli    opposed    by    the    attorney    of  ^-   K-  878. 

record.      Hcrniaii    r.    New    York    City  Zlfoadley  V.  Good,  24  Tex.  235. 

K.  Co.,   \.>1  App.   Div.  4ti'.i,   106  X.  Y.  3  In   re  McCuUough,  5  Pa.   Co.  Ct. 

S.    S!i(i.  87. 

16  I'.., pi.-    r.    llutcli,    GU    Mich.    229, 
2G  X.  \V.  8G0. 


§    248]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


455 


an  attorney  was  authorized  to  institute  or  defend  a  suit  presents  a 
question  of  fact.* 

§  248.  Control  of  Proceedings  in  Court.  —  The  general  rule 
is  that  an  attorney  retained  to  conduct  proceedings  in  court  has 
exclusive  control  thereof,^  and  this  is  especially  true  as  to  matters 
of  procedure.^     An  attorney  at  law  is  ex  officio  authorized  to  do 


4Nutt  r.  Merrill,  40  Me.  237. 

5  United  States. — Nightingale  v. 
Oregon  Cent.  R.  Co.,  2  Sawy.  341,  18 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,264;  Bonnifieid  V. 
Thorp,  71  Fed.  924.  See  also  Pierce 
V.  Strickland,  2  Story  292,  19  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  11,147;  Gordon  r.  Coolidge, 
1  Sumn.  537,  10  Fed.  Cas.  No.  5,606. 

Califor7iia.—¥undod  Debt.  Com'rs 
V.  Younger,  29  Cal.  147,  87  Am.  Dec. 
164;  Mott  V.  Foster,  45  Cal.  72; 
Wylie  V.  Sierra  Gold  Co.,  120  Cal. 
485,   52  Pac.   809. 

Connecticut.  —  Monson  r.  Hawlcy, 
30  Conn.  51,  79  Am.  Dec.  233. 

Indiana. — McConnell  v.  Brown.  40 
Ind.  384;  Miedreich  r.  Eank,  40  Ind. 
App.   393,  82  N.  E.   117. 

Louisiana. — See  Simpson  v.  Lom- 
bas,  14  La.  Ann.   103. 

Maine. — Jenney  v.  Delesdernier,  20 
Me.    191. 

Massachusetts. — ]\Ioulton  v.  Bow- 
ker,  115  Mass.  30,   15  Am.  Pvep.   72. 

Missouri. — McDonough  V.  Daly,  3 
Mo.   App.   60C. 

Neiv  Hampshire.  —  Edgerton  f. 
Brackett,  11  N.  H.  218. 

IVcip  York. — Anonymous,  1  Wend. 
108;  Gaillard  r.  Smart,  6  Cow.  385. 
See  also  Kellogg  v.  Gilbert,  10  Johns. 
220,  6  Am.  Dec.  335;  Ford  v.  Wil- 
liams, 13  N.  Y.  584,  67  Am.  Deo.  83. 

rennsylvania. — Kissick  v.  Hunter, 
184  Pa.  St.  174,  39  Atl.  83. 

And  see  the  following  section. 


6  United  States. — Putnam  v.  Day, 
22  W^all.  60,  22  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)   764. 

Massachusetts.  —  De  Montague  V. 
Bacharach,  187  Mass.  128,  72  N.  E. 
938. 

Mississippi. — Scarborough  V.  Har- 
rison Naval  Stores  Co.,  95  Miss.  501, 
52  So.  143,  reversing  95  Miss.  497, 
51  So.  274. 

New  nampsJiire. — Edgerton  v. 
Brackett,  11  N.  H.  218. 

New  York. — Devlin  v.  New  York, 
15   Abb.   Pr.  N.   S.   31. 

Pcnnsijlvcnia. — Munley  v.  Sugar 
Notch  Borough,  215  Pa.  St.  228,  64 
Atl.  377. 

South  Dakota.  —  Dalbkermeyer  r. 
Scholtes,  3  S.  D.  183,  52  N.  W.  871. 

Wisconsin. — Illinois  Steel  Co.  v. 
Warras,  141  Wis.  119,  123  N.  W. 
656. 

But  an  attorney  authorized  merely 
to  prepare  a  petition  appropriate  to 
the  procurement  of  letters  of  admin- 
istration, has  no  authoritj^  to  describe 
particularh'  the  property  belonging 
to  the  decedent's  estate;  and  a  de- 
scription of  such  property  in  the  pe- 
tition prepared  by  him  is  not  bind- 
ing on  the  client  as  an  admission. 
Duff  V.  Duff,  71  Cal.  513,  12  Pac.  570. 

Should  Examine  Proceedings. — An 
attorney  on  being  retained  for  a  de- 
fendant should  examine  the  state  of 
the  proceedings,  though  it  is  fair 
practice    for    the    plaintiff's    attorney 


456 


AUTIIOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  248 


all  acts  necessary  and  incidental  to  the  management  of  the  suit, 
and  which  affect  the  remedy  only  and  not  the  cause  of  action.' 
When  one  pnts  his  case  against  another  into  the  hands  of  an  attor- 
ney for  suit,  it  is  a  reasonable  presumption  that  the  authority  he 
intends  to  confer  npon  the  attorney  includes  such  action  as  the 
latter,  in  his  superior  knowledge  of  the  law,  may  decide  to  be  legal, 
proper  and  necessary  in  the  prosecution  of  the  demand ;  and  con- 
sequently whatever  proceedings  may  be  taken  by  the  attorney  are 
to  be  considered,  so  far  as  they  affect  the  defendant  in  the  suit, 
as  approved  by  the  client  in  advance,  and  therefore  as  his  act,  even 
though  they  prove  to  be  unwarranted.'  The  temporary  absence  of 
an  attorney  fi'om  the  county  does  not  alter  the  rule  that  he  has 
exclusive  manao-ement  and  control  of  the  case.^     But  this  exclu- 


to  disclose  them.  Steele  v.  Tennent, 
1  Cai.  (X.  Y.)  08,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  169. 

7  United  States. — Pierce  /•.  Strick- 
land, 2  Story  292,  ]9  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
11,147. 

Massachusetts. — Moulton  v.  Bow- 
ker,  115  Mass.  36,  15  Am.  Rep.  72. 

Minnesota. — Eickman  r.  Troll,  29 
Minn.   124,   12   N.   W.   347. 

Missouri. — Davis  r.  Hall,  90  Mo. 
G59,  3  S.  W.  382 ;  Mignogna  V.  Chiaf- 
farelli,  15]  :\lo.  App.  359,  131  S.  W. 
7G9. 

Xeio  YorJc. — Pouchcr  v.  Blanchard, 
80  N.  Y.  256. 

'Sorth  Dakota. — Bacon  v.  Mitchell, 
14  X.  D.  454,  106  X.  W.  129,  4  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)    244. 

South  Carolina. — Brooks  r.  Brooks, 
16  S.   C.  621. 

South  Dakota. — Fowler  v.  Iowa 
Land  Co.,  18  S.  D.  131,  99  X.  W. 
1 095. 

Separation  of  Jury. — Wlierc,  npon 
tiie  submission  of  a  civil  case,  the 
jury  are  instructed  regarding  tlicir 
duties  during  any  sopiiration  lliat 
might  take  place  befor  ■  tlnir  dclili- 
erations    are   concluded,    and    the   at- 


torneys for  both  parties  afterward 
assented  to  a  proposal  made  by  the 
court  that  the  jury  be  permitted  to 
separate  for  a  definite  time,  the  pro- 
posal being  made  under  such  circum- 
stances and  stated  in  such  terms  that 
the  court  was  justified  in  understand- 
ing that  the  attorneys  consented  to 
the  jury's  being  dismissed  by  the 
bailiff  in  the  absence  of  the  judge, 
the  objection  that  the  jury  were  not 
given  an  additional  admonition  be- 
fore sucli  separation  is  not  avail- 
able on  review.  Fields  v.  Dewitt, 
71  Kan.  070,  0  Ann.  Cas.  349,  81 
Pae.   407. 

8  Foster  r.  ^Yiley,  27  Mich.  244,  15 
Am.  Rep.  185. 

Thus  a  client  is  bound  by  the  direc- 
tion of  his  attorney,  indorsed  on  an 
affidavit  in  claim  and  deliverv,  re- 
quiring the  officer  to  take  the  ]irop- 
crty  described  in  the  affidavit  from 
the  defendant  and  deliver  the  same 
to  the  plaintiff,  though  the  property 
in  fact  Ijclonged  to  a  third  person. 
Fcury  r.  McCormick  Harvesting 
Mach.  Co.,  0  S.  D.  .396.  61  N.  W.  162. 

OMott   V.  Foster,   45   Cal.   72. 


§    249]  AUTHOEITY    IX    COXDUCTING    LITIGATION.  457 

sive  control  is  to  a  certain  extent  subject  to  supervision  by  the 
court ;  thus  if  counsel  were  to  conduct  a  cause  in  such  a  manner 
that  an  unjust  advantage  would  be  given  to  the  other  side,  or  to 
act  under  a  mistake  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce  some  injustice, 
the  court  has  authority  to  overrule  the  action  of  the  advocate,^" 

§  249.  Excluding  Control  by  Client.  —  The  general  rule  is, 
that  while  a  party  to  an  action  may  appear  in  his  own  proper  per- 
son, or  by  attornej^  he  cannot  do  both ;  and  where  he  has  retained 
an  attorney  who  appears  of  record  for  him,  he  can  act  only  through 
such  attorney,  and  the  court  cannot  recognize  any  other  person  in 
the  management  or  control  of  the  action.^^  The  client  has  no  right 
whatever  to  interfere  with  his  attorney  in  the  due  and  orderly 
conduct  of  the  suit/^  nor  can  he  constitute  or  authorize  an  agent 
to  do  so.^^  But  the  parties  to  an  action  may,  in  the  absence  of 
fraud  and  collusion,  settle  and  adjust  the  same  without  the  inter- 
vention of  their  attorneys ;  ^*  questions  of  this  character  usually 
arise  in  actions  by  attorneys  for  compensation,  or  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  a  lien,  and  will  be  more  fully  considered  under  those 
heads.'^^     Under  a  California  statute  it  has  been  held  that  while 

10  Matthews  v.  Munster,  20  Q.  B.  ^^  Indiana. — Miedreich  v.  Bank,  40 
D.    (Eng.)    141,  57  L.  J.  Q.  B.  40,  57       Ind.  App.  393,  82  N.  E.  117. 

L.  T.  N.  S.  922,  36  W.  R.  178,  52  J.  New    Yor/^.— Roberts    v.    Doty,    31 

P.  2G0.  Hun  128:  Root  v.  Van  Duzen,  32  Hun 

11  Nightingale  v.  Oregon  Cent.  R.  fi3:  Reeder  v.  Lockwood,  30  Misc. 
Co.,  2  Sawy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  531,  62  N.  Y.  S.  713;  Pilger  v.  Gou. 
10,264;  Funded  Debt  Com'rs  i'.  21  How.  Pr.  155;  McBratney  r.  Rome, 
Younger,    29    Cal.    147,    87    Am.    Dec.  W.  &  0.  R.  Co.,  87  N.  Y.  467. 

164;    Wylie    v.   Sierra   Gold   Co.,    120  Oregon.— Wagner    r.    Goldschmidt, 

Cal.  485,  52  Pac.  809;   Boca  &  L.  R.  51   Ore.  63,  93  Pac.  689. 

Co.   V.   Superior  Court,   150   Cal.   153,  Tennessee. — Yoakley    r.    Hawley,    5 

88   Pac.   718;    Webb    v.   Dill,    18   Abb.  Lea    670. 

Pr.    (N.  Y. )    264.  The  parties  to  a  judg-ment  can  stip- 

12  Kern  v.  Chicago,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  ulate  for  dismissal  of  an  appeal  there- 
201  Fed.  404;  Anonymous,  1  Wend.  from  without  the  aid  or  intervention 
(N.  Y.)  108;  Ulster  County  v.  Bred-  of  their  counsel.  Humptulips  Driv- 
head,  44  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  426;  Read  ing  Co.  r.  Cross,  65  Wash.  636,  118 
r.   French,  28  N.  Y.  285.  Pac.   827.   37   L.R.A.(N.S.)    226. 

13  Nightingale  i\  Oregon  Cent.  R.  15  As  to  the  right  to  compensation 
Co..  2  Sawy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  when  the  action  has  been  settled  by 
10,264.  the  client,  see  infra,  §§  456-460. 


458 


AUTilOKlTY    I^"     CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


L§  -^"'<J 


there  is  an  attornej  of  record,  no  stipulation  as  to  the  conduct  or 
disposal  of  the  action  should  be  entertained  by  the  court  unless 
the  same  is  signed  or  assented  to  by  such  attorney. ^^ 

§  250.  Dismissal,  Discontinuance,  and  Retraxit.  —     It     is 

well  settled  that  an  attorney  may  dismiss  a  suit  by  virtue  of  his 
general  authority ;  ^^  so,  power  given  by  statute  to  a  party  to  dis- 
miss a  suit  may  be  exercised  by  his  attorney."  But,  even  though 
it  is  justified,  the  court  does  not  approve  the  practice  of  a  lawyer 
dismissing  a  case  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of  his  client,^^ 
and  it  has  been  held  that  he  has  no  authority  to  dismiss  it  con- 
trary to  the  desire  and  over  the  objection  of  his  client.^  An  at- 
torney may  also  enter  a  discontinuance  without  express  authority.^ 
The  foregoing  rules  result  from  the  fact  that  the  attorney  has  the 


As  to  the  right  to  a  lien  under 
similar  circumstances,  see  infra,  §§ 
640-645. 

16  Boca  &  L.  R.  Co.  v.  Superior 
Court,   150  Cal.   153,  88  Pac.  718. 

17  Calif orma. — McLeran  v.  McNa- 
mara,  55  Cal.  508. 

Connecticut. — Union  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Pitkin,    14   Conn.    174. 

loica. — Contra  Rhutasol  r.  Rule,  97 
Iowa  20,  65  N.  W.  1013. 

Minnesota. — Gibson  r.  Nelson,  111 
Minn.  183,  126  N.  W.  731,  137  Am. 
St.  Rep.  549,  31   L.R.A.(N.S.)    523. 

Missotiri. — Davis  v.  Hall,  90  Mo. 
659,  3  S.  W.  382. 

Montana. — Jubilee  Placer  Co.  v. 
Hossfcld,  20  Mont.  234,  50  Pac.  716. 

Xeio  York. — Gaillard  i\  Smart,  6 
Cow.  385;  Barrett  v.  Third  Ave.  R. 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.  628. 

\nrth  Dakota. — Bacon  v.  Mitchell, 
14  N.  D.  454,  100  N.  W.  129,  4  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)    244. 

0/iio.— Lowell ville  Coal  Min.  Co.  v. 
Za|.pio,  80  Oliio  St.  4.-)S,  89  N.  E. 
M7. 

Tvnncsnee. — Yoal<iey    r.    llawlcy,    5 


Lea  670;  Stephens  v.  Nashville,  etc., 
R.   Co.,    10   Lea   448. 

Texas. — Seeligson  v.  Gilford,  46 
Tex.  Civ.  App.  566,  103  S.  W.  416. 

Washington. — Simpson  r.  Brown,  1 
Wash.  Ter.  248. 

18  Davis  V.  Hall,  90  Mo.  659,  3  S. 
W.  382;  Seeligson  c.  Gilford,  40  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  566,  103  S.  W.  416. 

19  The  Zilpha,  40  Ct.  CI.  200. 

1  Steinkamp  r.  Gaebel,  1  Neb.  (un- 
official) Rep.  480,  95  N.  W.  684.  See 
also  Kurrus  t'.  Mayo,  4  111.  App.  106. 

2/«i»ois.— Gillett  V.  Booth,  6  111. 
App.  423. 

Louisiana. — Paxton  r.  Cobb,  2  La. 
137. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Hall,  90  Mo. 
659,  3   S.   W.  382. 

New  York. — Gaillard  v.  Smart,  6 
Cow.  385;  Barrett  r.  Third  Ave.  R. 
Co.,  45  N.  Y.   628. 

Texas. — Seeligson  v.  Gi  fiord.  46 
Tex.   Civ.   App.  566,   103   S.  W.  410. 

Washington. — Simpson  r.  Brown,  1 
Wash.  Ter.  247. 

Wliere  the  plaintiff's  attorney  told 
the    attorney    for   tlie   dcfciulaiit    Ihat 


§   250] 


AUTHOIClTr    IN    CONDUCTIAO    LITIGATION. 


451) 


free  and  full  control  of  a  case  in  its  ordinary  incidents— the  ex- 
clusive conduct  and  management  of  the  suit ;  ^  and  the  question 
as  to  whether  an  action  shall  be  dismissed  relates  to  the  conduct 
of  the  suit  and  to  the  remedy,  and  is  one  peculiarly  addressed  to 
the  skill,  knowledge  and  judgment  of  the  attorney.  When  the  al- 
ternative is  presented  of  a  probable  defeat  upon  the  merits,  or  a 
dismissal  without  prejudice,  thus  saving  the  cause  of  action,  it  is 
for  the  attorney  to  decide,  as  one  of  the  incidents  of  the  trial,  in 
the  performance  of  his  duty  to  his  client,  which  course  to  pur- 
sue.* But  the  general  authority  of  an  attorney  does  not  include 
power  to  enter  voluntarily,  or  cause  to  be  entered,  an  order  that 
perpetually  bars  the  right  of  his  client,  such  as  retraxit.  Such  an 
act  can  be  done  only  by  the  party  in  person,  or  by  his  attornev  in 
pursuance  of  special  authority  conferred  upon  him  for  that  pur- 
pose.*    It  has  been  held  in  some  states,  however,  under  statutes 


a  cause  was  discontinued,  and,  being 
requested  by  tlie  latter  to  enter  a 
rule  to  discontinue,  said  it  was  not 
necessary,  and,  in  consequence,  the 
defendant,  with  the  consent  of  his 
special  bail,  went  to  Europe,  where- 
upon, no  rule  being  entered,  the  plain- 
tiffs afterwards  proceeded  with  the 
cause,  it  was  held  that  a  discontinu- 
ance was  within  the  general  power 
of  an  attorney,  and  hence  a  discon- 
tinuance would  be  entered  on  defend- 
ant's motion.  Caillard  v.  Smart,  6 
Cow.    (N.  Y.)    385. 

But  it  has  also  been  held  that  the 
fact  that  an  attorney  received  an 
order  from  his  client  requesting  the 
dismissal  of  an  action,  does  not  re- 
quire the  attorney  to  enter  such  dis- 
missal on  motion  of  the  adverse 
party.  McConnell  v.  Brown,  40  Ind. 
384. 

3  See  supra,  §   24G. 

4  Bacon  v.  Mitchell,  14  N.  D.  454, 
106  N.  W.  129,  4  L.E.A.(N.S.)    244. 

5  England. — Coux  v.  Lowther,  1  Ld. 


Raym.  597;  Lamb  v.  Williams,  1  Salk. 
89. 

Alabama. — Thompson  r.  Odum,  31 
Ala.   108,  68  Am.  Dec.  159. 

Colorado. — Hallack  f.  Loft,  19 
Colo.   74,  34  Pac.  568. 

Indiana. — Lambert  v.  Sandford,  2 
Blackf.   137,  18  Am.  Dec.  149. 

Kentucky. — Harris  r.  Tiffany,  8  B. 
Mon.   225. 

Montana. — Jubilee  Placer  Co.  v. 
Hossfeld,  20  Mont.  234,  50  Pac.  716. 

New  Jersey. — Waldron  r.  Angle- 
man,  71  N.  J.  L.  166,  58  Atl.  508. 

Xev?  York. — Gorham  r.  Gale,  7 
Cow.  739,  17  Am.  Dec.  549;  Kellogg 
V.  Gilbert,  10  Johns.  220,  6  Am.  Dec. 
335. 

Pennsylvania. — Lowry  v.  McMillan, 
8  Pa.  St.  157,  49  Am.  Dec.  501. 

Texas. — Hickey  v.  Stringer,  3  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  45,  21  S.  W.  716. 

Vermont. — Sheffer  v.  B.  B.  Per- 
kins &  Co..  83  Vt.  185,  75  Atl.  6,  25 
L.R.A.(N.S.)     1313. 

Virginia, — Smith  v.  Lambert,  7 
Grat.   138. 


4G0 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


§    251 


regulating  the  powers  of  attorneys  and  counselors  at  law,  that  an 
attorney  has  authority  to  enter  a  retraxit.^  The  right  of  an  at- 
torney to  compromise,  waive,  or  release  his  client's  cause  of  ac- 
tion or  other  substantial  right  has  been  considered  in  the  places 
indicated  by  the  subjoined  note.' 

§  251.  Authority  to  Make  Affidavit  for  Client.  —  In  the  ab- 
sence of  statutory  regulation  to  the  contrary,  an  attorney  may 
make  an  affidavit  for  his  client,  providing  he  has  sufficient  knowl- 
edge of  the  facts ;  ^  in  such  case,  however,  the  affidavit  should 
show  the  reason  for  the  party's  failure  to  make  it  personally,^ 
though  in  some  states  no  such  showing  is  required,^"  the  attorney's 


West  Virginia. — Forest  Coal  Co.  v. 
Doolittle,  54  W.  Va.  210,  46  S.  E. 
238. 

6  Funded  Debt  Com'rs  i".  Younger, 
29  Cal.  147,  87  Am.  Dec.  164;  Mer- 
rill V.  Campbell,  47  Cal.  542:  Wesl- 
bay  V.  Gray,  116  Cal.  665,  48  Pac. 
800;  Barnard  v.  Daggelt,  68  Ind.  305. 

7  As  to  compromise,  see  supra,  §§ 
215-226.  As  to  release,  see  supra, 
§g  227,  228.  As  lo  waiver  of  client's 
substantial  rights,  see  infra,  §  263. 

8  Vnited  f^tatcs. — The  Brig  Hatriet, 
01c.  Adm.  222,  11  Fed.  Cas.  No.  G.096. 

California. — Eue  v.  Quinn,  137  Cal. 
651,  66  Pac.  216,  70  Pac.   732. 

Colorado. — Daum  v.  Conley,  27 
Colo.  56,  59  Pac.  753. 

Florida. — Seaboard  Air  Line  R.  Co. 
r.  Southern  Investment  Co.,  53  Fla. 
832,  13  Ann.  Cas.  18,  44  So.  351. 

Georgia. — Murphy  i'.  Winter,  IS 
Ga.  690. 

8  California. — Byrne  v.  Alas,  68 
Cal.  479,  9  Pac.  850;  Will  v.  Lytic 
Creek  Water  Co.,  100  Cal.  344,  34 
Pac.  8.30;  Bue  r.  Quinn,  137  Cal.  651, 
6(i  Pac.  216,  70  Pac.  732. 

y/iinoi.9.— Lockhart  V.  Wolf,  82  111. 
37. 


Iowa. — Widner  v.  Hunt,  4  Iowa 
355. 

Kentueky.— Clark  r.  Miller,  8R  Ky. 
108,  10  S.  W.  277.  See  also  Johnson 
r.  .Johnson,  31  Fed.  700  (decided  un- 
der Kentucky  statute). 

Louisiana. — Williams    v.    Brashear, 

16  La.  77;  Beatly  v.  Tele,  9  La.  Ann. 
129;  Schneider  v.  Vercker,  11  La. 
Ann.    274. 

New  York. — Roosevelt  v.  Dale,  2 
Cow.  581;  Philips  V.  Blagge,  3  Johns. 
141;  Field  r.  New  York  Cent.  &  H. 
R.  R.  Co.,  35  Misc.  Ill,  71  N.  Y.  S. 
220;    Cross   v.  National   F.   Ins.   Co., 

17  Civ.  Pro.  199,  6  N.  Y.  S.  84;  Clark 
r.  Sullivan,  55  Hun  604  mem,  8  N. 
Y.  S.  565;  Van  Ingen  v.  Herold,  64 
Hun  637  mem,  19  N.  Y.  S.  456;  Tal- 
berl  V.  Storum,  66  Hun  635  mem,  21 
N.  Y.  S.  719;  Cohn  v.  Baldwin,  74 
llun   346,  26  N.  Y.   S.  457. 

Wisconsin. — Sloane  r.  Anderson,  57 
Wis.  123,  13  N.  W.  684,  15  N.  W.  21. 

^0  Arkansas. — Mandel  r.  Peel,  18 
Ark.   244. 

Louisiana. — Simpson  v.  Lombas,  14 
l.a.  Ann.   103. 

Massnohv.tetts. — Wright  V.  Coles, 
11    Melc.   293. 


§    252]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  4G1 

authority  being  presumed,  or  provable  by  extrinsic  evidence.^^ 
Some  statutes  require  an  affidavit  to  be  made  by  the  party  per- 
sonally, and  in  such  cases  the  oath  of  the  attorney  is  ordinarily 
insufficient;  ^^  but,  notwithstanding  such  statutes,  it  is  apparent 
that  a  party's  illness  or  unavoidable  absence  would  necessitate  the 
receiving  of  the  affidavit  of  an  attorney  or  other  agent  in  behalf 
of  the  litigant,  in  the  interest  of  justice,  where  the  affiant's  knowl- 
edge, and  the  party's  inability  to  act,  were  satisfactorily  shown  to 
the  court.  Thus,  for  instance,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  court 
would  require  a  party  to  make  an  affidavit  where  he  was  suffer- 
ing from  a  contagious  disease,  or,  possibly,  where  he  was  a  resi- 
dent of  a  building,  or  even  vicinity,  in  which  other  persons  were 
so  afflicted. 

§  252.  Authority  to  Incur  Expense.  — -  There  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  authority  of  an  attorney,  in  the  conduct  and  manage- 
ment of  his  client's  case,  to  make  such  necessary  and  proper  dis- 
bursements as  the  case  shall  require.  This  authority  can  be  im- 
plied  from   the   relation  of  attorney  and   client,   from  which   a 

Michigan. — Stringer     V.     Dean,    Gl  Missouri. — Lewin    v.    Dille,    17    Mo. 

Mich.  196,  27  N.  W.  886.  64;    Bryant  v.  Harding,   29  Mo.  347; 

Minnesota. — Smith   v.   Victorin,   54  Huthsing  v.  Maus,  36  Mo.  101;   Nor- 

Minn.  338,  56  N.  W.  47.  veil  v.  Porter,  62  Mo.  309 ;  Matter  of 

Nevada. — Streetcr    v.    Johnson,    23  Wliitson,    89    Mo.    58,    1    S.    W.    125; 

Nev.   194,  44  Pac.  819.  Raming  r.  Metropolitan  St.  R.  Co.,  157 

iiGilkeson  v.  Knight,  71  Mo.  405;  Mo.  477,  57  S.  W.  268;    Clements  v. 

Melcher  r.  Scruggs,  72  Mo.  406;  Ring  Greenwell,  40  Mo.  App.  589. 

V.  Charles  Vogel   Paint,   etc.,  Co.,   46  New    York. — Pach    v.    Geoffroy,    65 

Mo.    App.   374;    Sato  v.    Hubbard,    8  Hun    619    mem.,    19    N.    Y.    S.    583; 

Ont.  Pr.  445.  People    v.   Spalding,    2    Paige    326. 

12  Colorado. — Davis  v.  John  Mouat  North  Carolina. — Sheppard  v.  Cook, 

Lumber  Co.,  2  Colo.  App.  381,  31  Pac.  3  N.  C.  241. 

187.  Duty    to    Make    Affidavits. — Where 

District     of     Columbia. — Martin    i\  defendant  is  unavoidably  absent  from 

Martin,    etc.,    Co.,    27    App.   Cas.    59,  trial  of  the  cause,  it  is  not  the  duty 

7   Ann.   Cas.   47.  of  the   attorney  to  make   affidavits — 

Georgia. — Elder    v.    Whitehead,    25  such  as  one  for  a  continuance,  or  new 

Qa.   262;    Hadden   v.   I/arned,   83   Ga.  trial.      Spencer  V.   Kinnard,    12    Tex. 

636,  10  S.  E.  278.  180. 

Maryland. — Didier      V.     Kerr,      12 
Gill  &  J.  499. 


462 


ATJTHOniTY    IS    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§   252 


request  on  the  part  of  the  client  will  be  presumed."  It  is  equally 
true  that,  however  necessary  the  services  might  be  regarded  by 
the  attorney  in  the  client's  interest,  the  client  has  a  right  to  re- 
fuse to  incur  the  expense  of  them,  and  the  attorney  cannot  charge 
the  client,  except  in  favor  of  some  one  who  acted  upon  the  pre- 
sumed authority  with  which  such  attorney  was  clothed ;  ^*  were  it 
otherwise  an  attorney  might  compel  the  client  to  pay  any  and  all 
sums,  however  much  beyond  the  means  or  inclination  of  the  client 
in  a  particular  case,  and  notwithstanding  the  person  towards  whom 
the  obligation  w^as  incurred  had  notice  of  the  restricted  or  ques- 
tionable right  of  the  attorney.^^  Within  these  principles  an  attor- 
ney may  bind  his  client  by  a  contract  for  the  printing  of  briefs  to 
be  used  in  a  case  in  which  he  is  employed,^®  and,  where  he  has 


^3  California. — See  Alexander  V. 
Denaveaiix,  53  Cal.  663;  Alexander  v. 
Denaveaux,   59   Cal.   476. 

Illinois. — Geo.  Hornstein  Co.  V. 
Crandall,  156  111.  App.  520.  See  also 
Hughes  r.  Zeigler,  69  1!1.  38. 

Indiana. — Palmer  r.  Miller,  19  Tnd. 
App.  624,  49  N.  E.  975,  25  Ind.  App. 
357,  58  N.  E.  213,  81  Am.  St.  Rep. 
107. 

/oica.— Clark  r.  Ellsworth,  104  la. 
442,  73  N.  W.  1023;  Forbes  v.  Chi- 
cago, etc.,  R.  Co.,  150  la.  177,  Ann. 
Cas.  1912D  311,  129  N.  W.  810. 

Louisiana. — See  Weisse  v.  New  Or- 
leans, 10  La.  Ann.  46. 

Missouri. — Williamson  Stewart  Pa- 
per Co.  V.  Bosbyshcll.  14  Mo.  App. 
534;  Shuck  f.  Pfenninghausen,  101 
Mo.  App.  697,  74  S.  W.  381. 

Nevada. — Feusier  v.  Virginia  City, 
3  Nev.  58. 

A'c/(;  York. — Judson  i\  Gray,  1 1  N. 
Y.  408;  Bonynge  v.  Field.  81  N.  Y. 
159;  Honynge  r.  Waterhury,  12  Ilun 
534:  Slieridiiii  r.  fiencf.  12  Ihm  (HHI; 
(■(.veil  /■.  Hurt.  14  Hum  2.">2 ;  Tlioinldn 
).  iuttli',  14  Ilun  624  mem.,  7  N.  Y. 
St.    Kcp.    801;    Urown    V.    Travcllera' 


Life  &  Accident  Ins.  Co.,  21  App. 
Div.  42,  47  N.  Y.  S.  253;  Badger  v. 
Celler,  41  App.  Div.  599,  58  N.  y.  s. 
653;  Argus  Co.  r.  Hotchkiss,  121  App. 
Div.  379,  107  N.  Y.  S.  138;  Tyrrcl 
?'.  Hammerstein,  33  Misc.  505,  67  N. 
Y.  S.  717;  Foland  v.  Dayton,  20  N. 
Y.  Wkly.  Dig.  59;  Mulligan  r.  Can- 
non, 25  Civ.  Proc.  348,  41  N.  Y.  S. 
279:  Howell  r.  Kinney,  1  How.  Pr. 
105;  Harry  r.  Hilton,  64  How.  Pr. 
199.  See  also  Packard  v.  Stephani, 
85  Hun  197,  32  N.  Y.  S.  1016;  Liv- 
ingston Middleditch  Co.  r.  New  Y'ork 
Dentistry  College.  31  Misc.  259.  64  N. 
Y.  S.  140;  Gibbs  r.  Prindle.  11  App. 
Div.  470,  42  N.  Y.  S.  329.  Compare 
Livingston  Middleditch  Co.  r.  New 
York  College  of  Dentistry,  30  Misc. 
831,  61   N.  Y.  S.  918. 

Wisconsin. — Vilas  r.  Bundy,  106 
Wis.  168,  81  N.  W.  812. 

Wyoming. — W.  W.  Kimball  Co.  r. 
Payne,  9  Wyo.  441,  64  Pac.  (i7:5. 

14  Packard  V.  Stephani,  S.">  Ilun 
197,   32   N.  Y.   S.   1016. 

15  I'ac'kard  r.  Stophuiii,  85  Ilun 
197.  .•12   N.   Y.   S.    lOKi. 

16 /////loi'.s.— Hornstein  Co.  v.  Cran- 
dall,  130  in.  App.   520. 


§    252]  AUTIIOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


463 


other  clients  jointly  interested  in  the  same  case,  he  may  make  them 
jointly  liable  for  such  payment,  provided  the  expense  to  each  is 
not  increased.^'  It  is  also  within  the  scope  of  an  attorney's  au- 
thority to  employ  a  stenographer,"  So,  an  attorney  may  bind  his 
client  for  the  payment  of  service  fees,^^  or  the  fees  of  a  referee,^" 
or  commissioner.^  Whether  the  attorney  may  bind  his  client  for 
his  personal  expenses  while  attending  to  the  client's  business 
must  obviously  depend  largely  on  the  terms  of  the  contract,^  or 


Lcuisiana. — Weisse  v.  New  Or- 
leans,   10    La.    Ann.   46. 

Massachusetts. — Moulton  v.  Bow- 
ker,  115  Mass.  30,  15  Am.  Rep.  72. 

Missouri. — Williamson  Stewart  Pa- 
per Co.  V.  Bosbyshell,  14  Mo.  App. 
534;  Tyrrel  v.  Milliken,  135  Mo.  App. 
293,  115  S.  W.  512. 

New  York. — Allison  v.  Sclieepei,  9 
Daly  365;  Argus  Co.  v.  Hotchkiss, 
]21  App.  Div.  378,  107  K  Y.  S.  138; 
Livingston  Middleditcli  Co.  v.  New 
York  College  of  Dentistry,  31  Misc. 
259,  7  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  398,  64  N.  Y. 
S.  -3  40,  affirming  30  Misc.  831,  61  N. 
Y.  S.  918;  Tyrrel  v.  Hammerstein,  33 
Misc.  505,  8  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  432,  67 
N.  Y.  S.  717. 

Tennessee. — Sanders  (;.  Riddick  156 
S.  W.  464. 

17  Williamson  Stewart  Paper  Co. 
r.  Bosbyshell,   14  Mo.   App.   534. 

18  Indiana. — Hogate  v.  Edwards,  65 
Ind.  372;  Miller  V.  Palmer,  25  Ind. 
App.  357,  58  N.  E.  213,  81  Am.  St. 
Rep.    107. 

New  York. — Bonynge  v.  Field,  81 
N.  Y.  159 ;  Bonynge  iK  Waterbury,  12 
Hun  534;  Sheridan  v.  Genet,  12  Hun 
060;  Thornton  v.  Tuttle,  44  Hun  624 
mem.,  7  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  801;  Bottomo 
V.  Neely,  54  Misc.  258,  104  N.  Y.  S. 
429;  Thornton  v.  Tuttle,  20  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  308,  7  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  801 ;  Harry 
r.  Hilton.  64  How.  Pr.  199,  11  Abb. 
N.  Cas.  448. 


Compare  Tobler  v.  Nevitt,  45  Colo. 
23L  16  Ann.  Cas.  925.  100  Pac.  416, 
]32  Am.  St.  Rep.  142,  holding  that 
where  an  attorney  has  no  authority 
to  prosecute  an  appeal  or  writ  of 
error,  he  cannot  bind  his  client  to 
pay  stenographer's  fees  for  services 
rendered  at  the  instance  of  the  attor- 
ney in  transcribing  evidence  to  be 
used  in  prosecuting  a  review  in  tlie 
supreme  court;  and  Bloomfield  v.  Ne- 
vitt, (Colo.)  131  Pac.  80],  wherein 
it  was  held  that  an  attorney  wlio  di- 
rected an  official  reporter  to  prepare 
a  bill  of  exceptions,  and  who  made 
no  claim  that  he  had  authority  to 
bind  his  client  to  pay  therefor,  was 
liable  for  the  value  of  the  reporter's 
services. 

19  Feusier  v.  Virginia  City,  3  Nev. 
58 ;  Eastman  v.  Coos  Bank,  1  N.  H. 
23. 

20  Howell  V.  Kinney,  1  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  105;  .Judsoni;.  Gray,  11  N. 
Y.  408;  Bottome  v.  Neely,  54  :Misc. 
258,  104  N.  Y.   S.  429. 

1  Fairchild  r.  Michigan  Cent.  R. 
Co..  8  111.  App.  591. 

2  Where  the  contract  of  employ- 
ment stipulated  that  all  plaintiff's 
necessary  expenses  in  conducting  the 
business  should  be  paid  by  defend- 
ant, plaintiff  can  recover  only  the 
amount  of  his  expenses  from  his  place 
of  residence  to  the  places  where  de- 
fendant's   business    called    him,    and 


464 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LI'IIGATION. 


[§  252 


usage.'  And  an  attorney  authorized  to  institute  replevin  may 
bind  his  client  to  pay  the  expense  of  removing  the  property,  when 
taken,  to  a  place  of  safety.^  So  an  attorney,  retained  in  a 
criminal  case,  may  incur  reasonable  expense  for  detective  serv- 
ice,^ but  he  cannot  employ  a  detective  who  was  formerly  engaged 
by  the  adverse  party  in  the  same  cause.^  It  has  also  been  held  in 
some  cases  that  an  attorney  may  employ  expert  witnesses  at  his 
client's  expense,'  and  that  one  so  employed  may  recover  from  the 
client,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  he  had  notice  of  a  limita- 
tion of  the  attorney's  authority  in  this  respect,  or  agreed  to  look 
solelv  to  the  attorney  for  compensation.*  Where  an  attorney  em- 
ployed an  expert  to  investigate  the  cause  of  the  collapse  of  a  build- 
ing, the  client's  liability  was  submitted  to  the  jury.^  But  the  em- 
ployment of  an  expert  witness  by  an  attorney  does  not  render  his 
client  liable  for  the  compensation  of  a  witness  who  attends  with 
knowledge  that  his  services  wore  not  desired  by  the  client,^"  or 
where  the  attorney  had  ample  opportunity  to  confer  with  his  client 
before  he  incurred  such  expense."     An  attorney  has  no  implied 


not  his  expenses  from  some  other 
place,  where  he  was  on  other  business, 
and  from  which  he  was  summoned  by 
defendant  to  conduct  the  cases  men- 
tioned in  the  contract.  Isham  v.  Par- 
ker, 3  Wash.  755,  29  Pac.  835. 

3  Whether  an  attorney  from  out- 
side a  county,  employed  to  render 
services  therein,  can  recover  for  lio- 
tel  bills  and  other  expenses  in  the 
county,  depends  on  the  usage  therein. 
Clark  V.  Ellsworth,  104  Iowa  442, 
73    X.   W.    1023. 

4  Fox  V.  William  Deering  &  Co.,  7 
S.  D.  443,  64  N.  W.  520. 

SKast  V.  Miller,  158  Cal.  723,  115 
Pac.    932, 

6  Wliore  a  detective  employed  by 
defendant  in  a  divorce  suit  was  for- 
merly employed  by  plaintiff  in  that 
suit,  but  had  severed  his  connection 
with  the  plaintiff,  ami  llie  defend- 
ant's  attorney    became    ;i    party    to    a 


contract  with  the  detective  to  fur- 
nish evidence  for  the  defendant  as 
to  the  plaintiff's  character,  the  at- 
torney was  held  to  be  guilty  of  un- 
professional conduct.  Murray  v.  Li- 
zotte,  31  R.  I.  509,  77   Atl.  231. 

As  to  representing  conflicting  in- 
terests generally,  see  supra,  §§  174- 
182. 

7Covoll  V.  Hart,  14  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
252;  Mulligan  r.  Cannon,  25  Civ. 
Proc.  348,  41  N.  Y.  S.  279;  Ross  v. 
Niles,  84  N.  Y.  S.  142. 

8  Mulligan  v.  Cannon,  25  Civ.  Pro. 
348,  41  N.  Y.  S.  279,  affirmed  153  N. 
Y.  603,  48  N.  E.  1105. 

9  Brown  v.  Travelers'  Life  &  Acci- 
dent Ins.  Co.,  26  App.  Div.  544.  50 
N.   Y.  S.   729. 

10  Packard  v.  Stephani,  85  Hun 
197,  32  N.  Y.  S.   1016. 

11  Knight  V.  Buser,  6  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)     772,    8    Am.    L.    Rec.    28, 


§  253] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


465 


authority,  however,  to  instruct  a  sheriff  to  conduct  a  business,  such 
as  a  restaurant,  upon  which  an  attachment  has  been  levied,  and 
thereby  bind  his  client  for  the  expenses  incurred. ^^  In  several 
cases  questions  of  this  character  have  arisen  in  actions  against  the 
attorney  for  the  recovery  of  expenses  incurred  by  him  on  behalf 
of  his  client.  These  are  considered  in  connection  with  the  ques- 
tion of  an  attorney's  personal  liability.^^  Contingent  fee  contracts 
usually  provide  as  to  the  payment  of  expenses,  the  interpretation 
of  such  contracts  depending  on  the  particular  language.^* 

Accopiance  of  Service  of  Process  and  Papers. 

§  253.  Original  Process.  —  An  attorney  has  no  implied  au- 
thority to  accept  or  waive  the  service  of  original  process  issued 
against  his  client,^^  but  in  many  jurisdictions  it  will  be  presumed, 
in  the  absence  of  proof  to  the  contrary,  that  the  acceptance  of  serv- 


wherein  it  was  held  that  when  an  at- 
torney and  his  client  reside  in  the 
same  city,  and  can  see  and  confer 
with  each  other  at  any  time,  the  at- 
torney is  not  authorized,  by  virtue 
of  his  general  employment,  to  engage 
an  expert,  at  the  expense  of  his  client, 
to  aid  him  in  the  preparation  of  his 
case. 

12  Alexander  r.  Denaveaux,  53  Cal. 
663. 

13  See   infra,  §   310. 

14  See  Whitlow  v.  Whitlow,  109  Ky. 
573,  60  S.  W.  182,  22  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1179;  Browne  i'.  West,  9  App.  Div. 
135,  41  N.  Y.  S.  146,  75  N.  Y.  St. 
Rep.  604;  Thomas  v.  Morrison,  92 
Tex.  329,  48  S.  W.  500,  modifying 
4t3  S.  W.  46. 

15  United  States. — Shainwald  v.  Da- 
vids,   69    Fed.    701. 

Connecticut. — Whitly  V.  Barker,  1 
Root   406. 

Florida. — Christopner  t'.  Newnham, 
34  Fla.  370,  16  So.  274. 

Attys.  at  L,  Vol.  I.— 30. 


Massachusetts. — Kimball  v.  Sweet, 
170  Mass.  538,  51   N.  E.  116. 

Minnesota:  —  Masterson  V.  Le 
Claire,  4  Minn.  163. 

Missouri. — Bradley  r.  Welcli,  100 
Mo.  258,  12  S.  W.  911. 

North  Carolina. — Starr  r.  Hall,  87 
N.  C.  381 ;  Warlick  v.  H.  P.  Reynolds 

6  Co.,   151   N.  C.   606,  66   S.  E.   657. 
Pennsylvania. — Com.     V.     Overseers 

of  Poor,  4  Kulp  87;  Bryn  Mawr  Nat. 
Bank  r.  .James,  152  Pa.  St.  364,  25 
Atl.  823;  McPherson  V.  McPherson, 
2  Leg.  Chron.  342. 

South  Carolina. — ^Recd  v.  Reed.  19 
S.  C.  548. 

South  Dakota. — Rice  r.  Bennett, 
137   N.   W.  359. 

Washington. — Ashcraft  r.  Powers, 
22  W^ash.  440,  61  Pac.   161. 

A  corporation  counsel  cannot  con- 
sent that  the  corporation  be  made  a 
party  to  an  action  wherein  it  has 
not  been  served  with  process.  Mc- 
Garry   v.    Supervisors   of   New   York, 

7  Robt.    (N.   Y.)    464 


4GG 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[i 


ice  of  original  process  bj  an  attorney  ^Yas  authorized.^®  Xor  car. 
such  acceptance  of  service  be  colhiterally  attacked.^''  The  pre- 
sumption of  authority  only  operates  in  the  absence  of  evidence, 
and  is  entirely  eliminated,  where  the  evidence  for  or  against  the 
special  authority  is  before  the  court. ^*  In  some  jurisdictions,  un- 
der prevailing  statutes,  an  attorney  duly  retained  in  a  cause  may 
accept  service  of  process. ^^  An  unauthorized  acceptance  of  service 
may  also  be  ratified  by  the  client  and  so  rendered  effective  against 
liim.^°  So,  an  attorney  may  be  duly  authorized  to  accept  service 
of  process  and,  in  such  case,  the  admission  of  service  is  binding- 


is  Georgia. — Buice  v.  Lowman  Gold, 
etc.,  Min.  Co.,  64  Ga.  769;  Hendrix 
r.  Cawthorn,  71  Ga.  742. 

Kansas. — Hendrix  V.  Fuller,  7  Kan. 
33h 

Louisiana. — Conrey  v.  Brenham,  ] 
La.  Ann.  397;  Ingram  v.  Richardson, 
2  La.  Ann.  839:  Taylor  v.  Sutton,  6 
La.  Ann.  709;  Bartlett  v.  Wheeler, 
31    La.    Ann.   540. 

Maryland. — Northern  Cent.  R.  Co. 
r.  Rider,  45  Md.  24. 

Minnesota. — Backus  v.  Burke,  63 
Minn.  272,  65  N.  W.  459. 

New  Jersey. — See  Beebe  v.  George 
IL  Beebo  Co.,  64  N.  J.  L.  497,  46  Atl. 
]  08. 

West  Virginia. — Marling  (;.  Rob- 
recht,  13  \V.  Va.  440. 

17  Edwards  v.  Moore,  99  N.  C.  1, 
5  S.  E.  13;  Adickes  v.  Lowry,  ]2  S. 
C.   97. 

18  Rice  /■.  Bennett,  (S.  I).)  137  N. 
\V.  359. 

19  Ingram  v.  Ricliardson,  2  La.  Ann. 
830 ;  Multnomah  Lumber  Co.  v.  West- 
ern Basket  Co.,  54  Ore.  22,  99  Pac. 
1040,  rehearing  denied  54  Ore.  28, 
102  I'ac.  1;  I)e  Vail  r.  De  Vail.  57 
Ore.  128.  109  Pac.  755,  110  Pac.  705; 
.McLiiiiiore    (;.    Ileirner,    31    'Jex.    189. 


See  also  Fislier  i\  Battaile,  31  Miss. 
471. 

20  Clark  t-.  Morrison,  80  Ga.  393,  0 
S.  E.  171;  Unger  v.  Bitser,  3  Lane. 
L.  Rev.  (Pa.)  309.  See  also  supra, 
§§   211-214. 

In  Fail  v.  Pressley,  50  Ala.  342, 
it  was  held  that  an  acknowledgment 
of  service,  made  in  the  defendant's 
name  by  an  attorney,  would  not  be 
set  aside  at  the  instance  of  his  per- 
sonal representative,  against  whom 
the  action  had  been  revived  on  the 
defendant's  death,  the  evidence  show- 
ing that  it  was  made  in  the  defend- 
ant's presence,  with  his  knowledge, 
and  without  objection  from  him,  and 
tliat  the  attorney's  name  was  regu- 
larly entered  on  the  trial  docket  as 
attorney  for  the  defendant  for  sev- 
eral consecutive  terms  before  and  up 
to  tlie  defendant's  death. 

Long-continued.  Relationship.  —  A 
party  wlio  lias  allowed  an  attorney 
to  represent  liiin  in  a  suit  for  five 
years  or  more  cannot,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  that  length  of  time,  object 
to  the  attorney's  acceptance  of  the 
original  process,  tlie  suit  liaving  been 
bi'gnn  by  attachment.  Sullivan  v. 
Susong,  40  S.  C.  154,  18  S.  E.  268. 


§    25;J]  AUTIIOKITY    IN    COADUCTIAG    LITIGATION. 


467 


upon  his  client.  Such  authority,  however,  should  he  specific,^  and 
should  appear  in  the  acceptance  of  service.^  It  has  also  been  held 
that  where  service  of  a  writ  was  acknowledged  by  an  attorney  sub- 
ject to  his  client's  approval,  under  express  authority,  without  fix- 
ing a  time  within  which  a  revocation  thereof  might  be  made,  such 
power  could  be  exercised  only  within  a  reasonable  time,  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  circumstances  involved,  and,  therefore,  for  ob- 
vious reasons,  not  after  the  term  to  which  such  writ  was  return- 
able.^ A  letter  authorizing  a  person  to  acknowdedge  service  of  the 
declaration  on  behalf  of  a  defendant  invests  him  with  no  authority 
to  waive  process.*  As  a  general  rule,  a  litigant  is  bound  by  direc- 
tions as  to  the  service  of  the  writ  given  by  his  attorney  to  the 
officer  to  wdiom  the  writ  is  delivered  for  service.* 


1  EnfilamL — Bayley  r.  Buckland,  ] 
Exch.   1. 

Kansas. — Atchison,  etc.,  R.  Co.  r. 
Benton,  42  Kan.  707,  22  Pac.  608. 

Minnesota.  —  Masterson  v.  Le 
Claire,  4  Minn.  163. 

North  Carolina. — Starr  v.  Hall,  87 
N.  C.  381. 

Pennsylvania. — Lawrence  v.  Ruth- 
erford, 1  Pearson  555 ;  McPherson  v. 
McPherson,  2   Leg.   Chron.  342. 

South  Carolina. — Reed  v.  Reed,  19 
R.  C.  548. 

In  an  action  on  foreign  judgments, 
evidence  held  not  to  show  that  the 
attorney  who  waived  issuance  and 
service  of  process  in  the  actions 
wherein  such  judgments  were  ren- 
dered was  authorized  to  do  so.  Rice 
V.  Bennett,    (S.   D.)    137   N.   W.   359. 

2  See  Philadelphia  /,'.  Jacobs,  22  W. 
N.   C.    (Pa.)    348. 

See  also  Segars  v.  Segars,  76  Me. 
96,  wherein  the  court  said,  of  the  ac- 
ceptance of  service  of  a  citation  to 
an  executor,  "True,  there  is  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  service  upon  the 
process,  but  no  proof  of  its  genuine- 
ness,   and    a    judgment   entered    upon 


such  an  acknowledgment  would  be 
open  to  all  the  defenses  which  might 
be  raised  to  an  action  upon  a  simple 
contract.  The  acknowledgment  is 
not  by  the  party  himself,  but  by  an 
attorney  who  does  not  appear  to  have 
been  an  attorney  of  record,  and  there- 
fore [there  is]  no  proof  of  liis  autlior- 
ity,  and  if  there  were,  tlie  writing  af- 
fords no  proof  of  tlie  'due  notice'  to 
the  executor  which  the  law  requires." 
Must  Prove  Attorney's  .Signature. 
— In  Masterson  r.  Le  Claire,  4  Minn. 
103,  it  was  said  that  where  service 
of  the  summons  is  admitted  in  writ- 
ing indorsed  on  it,  the  signature  of 
the  defendants  must  be  proved,  or 
the  proof  of  service  is  defective.  The 
court  will  not  take  notice  of  the  sig- 
nature of  an  attorney  of  the  court 
signed  to  such  an  admission,  whether 
signed  for  himself,  or  for  anotlier. 

3  Felder  V.  Jolinson,  1  Bailey  L.  ( S. 
C.)    624. 

4  Clark  V.  Morrison,  85  Ga.  229,  11 
S.  E.  614. 

5  Gray  v.  Patton,  13  Bush  (Ky.) 
625;  Morgan  v.  Joyce,  66  N.  H.  538, 
27   Atl.  225. 


4G8 


AUTllOltlTY    IN    CON'DUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  254 


§  254.  Subsequent  Notices  and  Other  Papers.  —  When  the 

original  process  has  been  served,  the  attorney  retained  in  the 
canse  may,  as  a  general  rule,  acknowledge  the  services  of  all  sub- 
sequent notices,  or  other  papers,  pertaining  to  the  suit;  and, 
should  he  refuse  to  do  so,  service  may  be  made  upon  him  as  effec- 
tively as  if  his  client  were  served  in  person;  ^  and  it  has  been  so 
held  as  to  the  service  of  motions  and  orders.'     It  has  also  been 


6  United  States.- — ^  Buddicum  r. 
Kirk,  3  Cranch  293,  2  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
444;  Kamm  v.  Stark,  1  Sawy.  547,  14 
Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  7,604;  Segee  v.  Thomas, 
3  Blatchf.  11,  21  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,633; 
Bartlett  v.  Sultan  of  Turkey,  19  Fed. 
346 ;  Abraham  v.  Xorth  German  F. 
Ins.  Co.,  37  Fed.  731,  3  L.R.A.  188; 
Gasquet  v.  Fidelity  Trust,  etc.,  Co., 
57  Fed.  80,  13  U.  S.  App.  564,  6  C. 
C.  A.  253;  U.  S.  V.  59,650  Cigars,  138 
Fed.   ]66. 

California. — Taylor  r.  Hill.  315 
Cal.   143,  44  Pac.  336,  46  Pac.  922. 

Massacliitsetts. — iNIcKenna  r.  Mc- 
Ardle.  191   Mass.  96,  77  X.  E.  782. 

Missouri. — McDonough  v.  Daly,  3 
Mo.   App.   606. 

Xeiv  Hampshire. — Sinitli  c.  Hill.  45 
X.   IT.  403. 

yew  York.—y.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro. 
§§  60.  79(5-802.  See  also  Merritt  r. 
Annan.  7  Paige  J 51;  Driggs  v.  Van 
Loon,  1  Col.  Cas.  51,  Col.  &  C.  Cas. 
56. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Nash  r.  Gilkeson, 
5  S.  &  R.  352;  Com.  r.  Scliooley,  5 
Kiilp  53. 

Wisconsin. —  llanis  r.  Snyder,  1115 
Wis.  451,  89  \.  W.  tidO. 

f'finndn.  -.\vi]\\ir  r.  Nelson,  (!  Hrit- 
isli  Colmiihia  :!lli:  Miiir  r.  (iuiiiiiiic, 
!l   (tnt.    I..    l!r|).   ■.',-J.\. 

W'lirrr  I'crsoiiul  Si'rricr  I mpoysihir. 
— /»  Louisiana  citation  of  appeal 
Hlioiild  l)C  made  upon  the  apfx-llee  per- 
Hoiiiillv    ov  at   his  (hiiiiicil    when  he  re- 


sides in  the  state;  but  if  after  dili- 
gent search  he  cannot  be  found  by 
the  sheriff,  and  if  he  has  no  domicil 
at  which  to  make  a  domiciliary  serv- 
ice, citation  served  upon  his  attorney 
will  save  the  appeal  from  absolute 
dismissal.  Levy  v.  Levy,  107  La. 
576,  32   So.   117. 

"^  United  States. — Eureka  Lake, 
etc..  Canal  Co.  r.  Superior  Ct.,  116 
U.  S.  410,  6  S.  Ct.  429,  29  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)    671. 

California. — Golden  Gate,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Superior  Ct.,  65  Cal.  192,  3  Pac. 
628;  Foley  i:  Foley,  120  Cal.  33,  52 
Pac.   ]22,  65  Am.  St.  Rep.   147. 

Illinois. — Manufacturers'  Paper  Co. 
V.  Lindblom,  80  111.  App.  267;  Pat- 
terson V.  Xorthern  Trust  Co.,  132  111. 
App.  208,  affirmed  230  111.  334,  82  X. 
E.  837,  and  231  111.  22,  82  X.  E.  840. 

Kansas. — Smith  c.  Cunningham;  59 
Kan.   552,   53   Pac.   760. 

Xeio  York. — Flynn  r.  Bailey,  50 
Barb.  73;  Lee  v.  Brown,  6  Johns. 
132;  Stafford  v.  Brown,  4  Paige  360; 
Walker  r.  Walker,  20  Hun  400; 
Drury  r.  Russell,  27  How.  Pr.  130; 
Miller  v.  Miller,  37  How.  Pr.  1;  Pitt 
V.  Davison,  37  X.  Y.  235,  reversing 
37  Barb.  97;  Mahon  r.  Mahon,  50 
Super  Ct.  92. 

\orth  Carolina. — Branch  r.  Wal- 
ker, !)2   X.   C.   87. 

I'cnnsi/lrania. — Ilutcheson  v.  John- 
son,  1   Bin.  59. 


§  254] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


469 


held  that  a  bill  to  enjoin  tlic  respondent  fi-oni  fnrtlier  prosecuting 
an  action  at  law  may  ijroperly  be  served  n])on  the  attorney  who 
appears  for  the  resj)ondent  in  the  action  at  law.^  In  some  states 
service  upon  attorneys  is  provideil  for  by  statute.^  The  notice,  mo- 
tion, order,  rule,  or  otlun-  pa})er,  should,  in  all  cases,  be  served  on 
the  attorney  of  record. ■^^  altlioniih  he  may  be  the  attorney  for  the 
nominal  plaintirt'  only,  and  iiot  for  the  real  plaintill'.^^  The  word 
"attorney,"  as  used  in  the  statutes  reuardini;'  service  of  papers,  re- 
fers to  attorneys  at  law,  and  does  not  include  "attorneys  in  fact."^^ 
When  there  are  several  joint  parties,  and  each  a])pears  by  his  own 
attorney,  the  attorney  for  one  of  such  parties  cannot  give  notice 
of  motion,  or  accept  service  of  notice,  or  stipulate,  for  another;  ^^ 
but  Avhere  all  of  several  joint  parties  are  reju'esentcd  by  the  same 
attorney,  service  upon  such  attorney  is  sufKcient  although  some  of 
such  parties  are  represented  by  other  counsel.^*  So  where  a  firm 
has  entered  an  appearance,  service  may  be  nuide  on  either  of  the 


8  Chalmers  r.  Hack.  19  Me.  124; 
Marco  r.  Low,  55  Me.  549.  See  also 
Eckert  v.  Baiiert,  4  Wash.  370,  8 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,266;  Ward  v.  Seabry, 
4  Wash.  426,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17.161; 
Ward  V.  Seabring,  4  Wash.  472,  29 
Fed.    Cas.    No.   17,160. 

But  see  Death  r.  Pittsburg  Eank, 
1  la.  382,  holding  that,  under  the 
Iowa  statute,  service  upon  the  attor- 
ney was  not  such  service  on  tlie  party 
as  to  give  the  court  jurisdiction  to 
order  a  perpetual  injunction. 

9  Nelson  v.  Omaley,  6  Greenl.  ( Me. ) 
218;  Mcrcier  r.  Pearlstone,  7  Abb. 
Pr.    (N.    Y.)    325. 

Pennsylraiua — Venditioni  Exponas. 
—Under  Act  Pa.,  Jan.  24,  1840,  a 
notice  to  a  life  tenant  of  an  applica- 
tion for  a  writ  of  venditioni  exponas 
to  sell  his  life  estate  may  be  served 
on  his  attorney  of  record  in  the  suit. 
Goodell  V.  Ehresman,  11  Pa.  Co.  Ct. 
400. 

10  Gregory  v.  Pike,  79  Fed.  520,  50 
U.  S.  App.  4,  25  C.  C.  A.  48;    Grant 


V.  White,  6  Cal.  55;  Powers  r.  liraly, 
75  Cal.  237,  17  Pac.  197.  See  also 
Roussin  V.  Stewart,  33  Cal.  208.  See 
also  McXairy  v.  Castleberry,  6  Tex. 
286. 

Compare  Fisher  r.  Battaile,  31 
Miss.  471,  holding  that  service  on  the 
attorney  wlio  conducts  and  manages 
the  case  is  sufficient,  although  he  is 
not   the    attorney    of    record. 

11  Simington   v.  Kent,  8  Ala.  691. 

12  Drake  r.  Duvenick,  45  Cal.  455; 
Ingram  r.  Richardson,  2  La.  Ann. 
839;  Weir  r.  Slocum.  3  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  397.  But  see  Fisher  v.  Baltaile, 
31    Miss.    471. 

l3Hobbs  V.  Dufl",  43  Cal.  485. 

14Landyskowaki  r.  Lark,  108  Mich. 
500,  66  N.  W.  371 ;  Walsh  v.  Mueller, 
14  Mont.  76,  35   Pac.  226. 

Wltere  a  solicitor  appeared  at  dif- 
ferent times  for  different  defendants 
in  the  cause,  a  copy  of  the  bill  sliould 
be  served  on  each  appearance.  People 
r.   Boyd,  2   Edw.    {N.  Y.)    516. 


470 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§   255 


partners ;  ^^  but  a  former  partner  of  the  attorney  of  record  cannot 
act  for  him  after  the  firm  has  been  dissolved ;  ^®  and  if  the  covm- 
sel  of  record  be  deceased,  service  cannot  be  made  either  on  his  for- 
mer partner  or  his  personal  representative."  An  acceptance  of 
service  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  the  client  was  not  properly 
served  with  the  original  process,  may  be  disregarded.^^ 

§  255.  Manner  of  Service.  —  In  the  absence  of  special  regu- 
lation, service  upon  an  attorney  should  be  made  in  precisely  the 
same  manner  as  if  it  were  made  on  his  client ;  but  where  the  mode 
of  service  on  attorneys  is  fixed  by  statute  or  rule  of  court,  the  serv- 
ice must,  of  course,  conform  thereto. ^^  Under  statutes  prevailing 
in  some  jurisdictions  service  on  the  attorney's  clerk,^°  or  other 
person  in  charge  of  his  office.'^  is  sufficient,  especially  where  he  is 


15  Lansing  r.  !McKillup,  7  Cow.  (N. 
Y.)    41 G. 

As  to  partnerships  generally,  see 
svpra,   §§   183-185. 

16  In  Diefendorf  r.  House,  9  How. 
Pr.  fX.  Y.)  243,  it  was  said  that 
wlicrc  the  attorney  of  record  dis- 
solved his  partnership  and  left  the 
state,  but  did  not  become  a  nonresi- 
dent, service  must  still  be  made  on 
him  and  not  on  his  former  partner. 
Service  on  a  noiuesident,  liowevcr, 
would   be    irregular. 

17  Bacon  r.  Hart,  1  Black  38,  17 
U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    52. 

Notice  to  Attornn/fi  Administra- 
tor.— Where,  ten  years  after  tlie 
death  of  an  attorney,  notice  of  a  mo- 
tion was  given  to  his  administrator. 
it  was  held  to  be  insudicient.  Waddle 
r.  Dayton,  8  N.  J.   L.   174. 

18  Rodgcrs  V.  Mutual  ICiulowincnt 
Assessment  Assoc.    17  S.   (".  400. 

IBNatiian  v.  Sutphcn.  08  Cal.  207. 
9  Pac.  110;  Cleland  r.  (lark,  111 
Midi.  33(i,  0!)  N.  W.  (552;  Mayell  v. 
Rprague,   8   Cow.    (N.   Y.)    110. 

\etv   York- — Arfeiits  of  Solicitors. — 


As  to  the  former  New  York  practice 
concerning  the  appointment  of  agents 
for  solicitors  upon  whom  notice  n'-ight 
be  served,  see  Hausenfrats  v.  Graves, 
Col.  &   C.   Cas.   101;    Russell   v.   Ball, 

I  Caines  252;  Hunt  V.  Onderdonk, 
3  Johns.  149;  Backus  r.  Rogers,  8 
Johns.  346 ;  Chapman  i".  Raymond, 
8     Johns.     360;    Caines     v.     Gardner, 

II  Johns.  89;  Jackson  r.  Stiles,  11 
Johns.  195;  Brown  V.  Childs,  17 
Jolms.  1  ;  Lawrence  v.  Warner,  1 
Cow.  198;  Lockwood  V.  McLean,  18 
Wend.  656;  Champlin  V.  Fonda,  4 
Jolins.  Ch.  62;  Billings  v.  Rattoon, 
5  Joluis.  Cli.  189;  James  r.  Berry,  1 
Paige  47;  Sinclair  v.  Sandford,  7 
Paige  432;  Waflie  v.  Yanderheyden, 
8  Paige  45;  Preeland  c.  Nott.  8  Paige 
431  ;  Johnson  r.  Quackenbush,  1  Barb. 
Ch.  292. 

20  Page  V.  Superior  Court,  122  Cal. 
209,  54  Pac.  730;  N.  Y.  Code  Civ. 
Pro.  §  797  (2).  See  also  Power  v. 
Kent,    1    Cow.    (\.    V.)    211. 

IN.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  797  (2). 
See  also  WarilcW  r.  Eden,  2  Johna. 
Cas.    (N.    Y.)    121. 


§  255] 


AtTTIIORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATfON. 


471 


absent  therefrom ;  ^  but  the  fact  that  a  clerk  in  an  attorney's  office 
is  authorized  to  accept  service  of  papers  in  cases  in  which  the  attor- 
ney has  been  retained  professionally,  will  not  authorize  him  to 
accept  service  in  an  action  against  the  attorney.^  Where  a  paper 
is  served  by  leavino-  it  with  a  person  in  the  attorney''s  office,  it  must 
be  shown  that  such  person  bears  to  the  attorney  the  rehition  con- 
templated by  the  statute.*  Statutory  ser-  ice  at  an  attorney's  of- 
fice charges  him  with  notice,  notwithstanding  he  may  not  actually 
receive  it  until  after  he  has  taken  further  proceeding's.®  The  affi- 
davit of  service  (the  return)  should  name  the  person  upon  whom 
service  was  made,  and  state  the  capacity  in  which  he  acted.® 
Service  at  the  office  should  be  made  during  office  hours  ;  '  but  where 


^Attorney  Present  in  Adjacent 
Room. — Where,  at  the  time  a  copy  of 
an  order  was  served,  the  attorney 
did  not  appear  to  be  in  his  olfice, 
and  the  person  employed  to  make  the 
service  accordingly  delivered  the  copy 
to  tlie  individual  found  in  charge 
of  the  oflice,  it  was  held  that  the 
fact  that  the  attorney  was  at  the 
time  in  an  adjacent  room  and  e;isily 
accessible  did  not  render  the  service 
irregular,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  copy  order  soon  came 
into  his  hands.  Gross  c.  Clark,  1 
Civ.  Pro.    (N.   Y.)    17. 

3  Lower  v.  Wilson,  9  S.  D.  252,  68 
N.  W.  545,  62  Am.  St.  Rep.  865. 

4  Anonymous,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  (N.  Y.) 
376;  Rathbone  r.  Blackford,  1  Caines 
(N.  Y.)  343;  Gelston  v.  Swartwout, 
1  Joh.is.  Cas.    (N.  Y.)    136. 

Service  on  Attorney's  Brother. — 
In  Warden  v.  Eden,  2  Johns.  Cas.  (N. 
Y. )  121,  service  on  the  attorney's 
brother,  who  happened  to  be  in  the 
office,   was   held   sufficient. 

Where  two  attorneys  had  offices 
with  a  common  entrance,  it  was  held 
that  one  of  them  had  "charge  of  the 
office"    of    the    other     when     present 


therein,  so  as  to  justify  service  of 
papers  upon  him.  Crook  v.  Crook,  14 
Daly  298,  12  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  663. 

Person  Having  Desk  Room  in  Office. 
—In  Treftz  v.  Stahl,  46  111.  App. 
462,  18  L.R.A.  500,  it  was  held  that 
service  of  notice  of  motion  by  leaving 
a  copy  with  one  who  merely  had  desk 
room  in  an  attorney's  office  was  not 
sufficient.  But  it  was  further  held 
that  such  attorney,  having  knowledge 
of  the  attempted  service  and  suffer- 
ing the  ease  to  be  tried  without  ob- 
jection,   waived   the    irregularity. 

5  Troy  Carriage  Works  r.  Muxlow, 
16  Misc.  561,  38  N.  Y.   S.  938. 

6  Graham  r.  Powers,  51  Ilun  643 
mem.,  3  N.  Y.  S.  899. 

7N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  797  (3). 
See  also  Oshiel  v.  De  Graw,  6  Cow. 
(N.    Y.)    63. 

In  Asinari  l\  Volkening,  2  Abb. 
N.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  454,  it  was  held  that 
service  of  a  paper  by  leaving  it  in 
the  office  of  the  plaintiff's  attorney 
on  the  last  day  to  answer,  after  the 
office  was  closed  and  all  had  left  for 
tlie  day,  was  not  sufficient. 

Clerk  about  to  Enter  Office.  — 
Where,    during    the    absence     of     tlie 


472 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


L§  -2'^ 


an  attornej  or  his  clerk  is  present  in  the  office,  even  at  a  late  hour 
at  night,  service  at  such  time  is  good.®  Some  statutes  and  court 
rules  provide  that  where  no  one  is  in  charge  of  the  office,  the 
paper  may  be  served,  during  office  hours,  by  leaving  it  in  a  con- 
spicuous place  in  the  office,  or  by  depositing  it  in  the  office  letter- 
box.^ A  service  of  this  character  is  available  only  where  it  ap- 
pears that  no  one  authorized  to  receive  the  paper  was  present," 
and  that  the  office  door  was  open  or  unlocked. ^^  A  paper  cannot 
be  properly  served,  under  such  a  regulation,  by  throwing  it  through 
the  transom,^^  or  by  pushing  it  under  the  door,"  or  dropping  it 
through  a  slit  in  the  door,^^  or  by  getting  some  one  to  unlock  the 
door  and  leaving  the  paper  in  a  conspicuous  place ;  ^^  but  it  seems 
that  where  leave  to  unlock  the  door  and  make  service  of  a  paper 
is  granted  by  a  person  having  authority  to  do  so,  the  service  is 
good.'^®  It  has  also  been  held  that  depositing  a  paper  through  the 
door  of  the  office  in  a  letter-box,  placed  there  for  the  reception  of 
documents,  is  putting  it  in  a  conspicuous  place  within  the  mean- 
ing of  such  a  statute."     In  some  instances  it  is  provided  that 


complainant's  solicitor  from  his  of- 
fice, an  answer  was  served  by  di^liv- 
ering  the  same  to  the  clerk  at  the 
door  of  the  office  as  he  was  aboat  to 
open  and  enter  the  office,  and  such 
clerk  immediately  afterwards  opened 
and  entered  the  office,  and  took  the 
answer  in  with  him,  it  was  a  good 
service.  Quincj'  r.  Foot,  1  Barb.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)    490. 

8  Cooper  r.  Carr,  8  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 
360;  Miller  r.  Stocking,  22  Wend. 
(X.  Y.)    023. 

9  X.  y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  7'M  (3). 
See  also  Corn  Excli.  i!ank  r.  I.Iyo,  44 
Ilun  028  mem.,  9  X.   \.  St.    Rcj).  07. 

10  Jackson  v.  Gardner,  Col.  &  C. 
Cas.    (X.   Y.)    3.-)I». 

11  Aiionyinous,  IS  Wni,!.  (X.  V.) 
ruH;  liaiglit  r.  .Moore,  3(1  Super.  Ct. 
(X.    Y.)     204. 

I2(lullin    c.    Dii    liois,    13   Civ.    I'ro. 


(X.    Y.)    234:    Haight    c.   Moore,    36 
Super.  Ct.    (X.  Y.)   294. 

13  Haight  r.  Moore,  36  Super.  Ct. 
(X.  Y.)  294;  Corning  r.  Pr.-iy,  2 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  626;  Anonymous,  18 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)  578.  Compare  Anony- 
mous, Col.  &  C.  Cas.    (X.  Y.)    426. 

14  Livingston  V.  Xew  York  El.  R. 
Co.,  58  Hun  131,  19  Civ.  Pro.  258, 
11  X.  Y.  S.  359:  Timolat  v.  S.  J. 
Held  Co.,  15  Misc.  630,  37  X.  Y.  S. 
221. 

15  Vail  r.  Lane,  4  Hun  (X.  Y.) 
(153;  Haight  r.  Moore,  30  Super.  Ct. 
(N.  Y.)  294;  Campbell  r.  Speneer,  1 
How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  190:  Livingston  r. 
Melntyre,  1  How.  Pr.    (X.  Y.)    253. 

16  Livingston  r.  McHityre,  1  How. 
Prac.     (X.    Y.)    253. 

I7.laiiuary  r.  Sui'erior  Ct.,  73  Cal. 
537,  15  Pac.  108;  Duval  i:  Busch,  21 
Abb.  X.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  214,  13  N.  Y. 
St.   Pej).  75'i. 


255] 


AUTIIOIMTY     IN     OONDUCTING     LITIGATIO?^. 


473 


where  the  attorney's  office  is  closed,  and  there  is  no  letter-l)Ox,  the 
paper  may  be  served  by  leaving  it  at  the  attorney's  residence  Avith- 
in  the  state  with  a  person  of  snitable  age  and  discretion.^^  ^Serv- 
ice  by  mail  is  anthorized  in  some  states;  ^^  tlnis  a  notice  to  a  non- 
resident attorney,  who  appears  of  record  as  the  attorney  in  charge 
of  the  canse,  nnassociated  with  local  counsel,  is  sufficient  if  made 
by  means  of  the  employment  of  the  registered  mail  service;  ^°  but 
an  attorney  is  not  bound  to  take  a  letter  from  the  post  office  charged 
with  postage,  though  he  has  reason  to  believe   it  contains  legal 


18  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  797  (3). 
See  also  Lathrop  v.  Judivini,  2  Cow. 
(N.  Y.)  484;  Gelston  f.  Swartvout, 
1  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  136;  Salter  v. 
Bridgen,  1  Johns.  Cas.  (N.  Y.)  244; 
Campbell  r.   Smith,  9  Wis.  305. 

19  Under  the  Neic  York  code  service 
may  be  made  "upon  a  party  or  an 
attorney,  through  the  post  office,  by 
depositing  the  paper,  properly  in- 
closed in  a  postpaid  wrapper,  in  the 
post  office,  or  in  any  post-office  box 
regularly  maintained  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  and  under 
the  care  of  the  post  office,  of  the 
party,  or  tlie  attorney  serving  it.  di- 
rected to  the  person  to  be  served  at 
the  address,  within  the  state,  de- 
signated by  him  for  that  purpose,  upon 
the  preceding  papers  in  the  action; 
or,  where  he  has  not  made  such  a 
designation,  at  his  place  of  residence, 
or  the  place  where  he  keeps  an  of- 
fice, according  to  the  best  informa- 
tion which  can  conveniently  be  ob- 
tained concerning  the  same."  N.  Y. 
Code   Civ.   Pro.    §    797    (1). 

"1 II  the  city  of  New  York,  where  a 
paper  is  served  or  a  return  is  made 
through  the  post  office,  the  deposit 
of  the  package  in  a  branch  post  of- 
fice has  the  same  effect,  as  a  deposit 
in  the  general  or  principal  jiost  office 


of  that  city."  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro. 
§    801. 

20Bonney  v.  McClelland,  138  111. 
App.  449,  affirmed  235  111.  259,  85  N. 
E.   242. 

Under  the  'New  York  Code  of  Civil 
Procedure,  "service  of  a  paper,  whicli 
miglit  be  made  upon  liim  at  his  resi- 
dence, if  he  was  resident  of  the  state, 
may  be  made  upon  a  person  regu- 
larly admitted  to  practice  as  an  at- 
torney and  counselor,  in  the  courts 
of  record  of  this  state,  whose  office 
for  the  transaction  of  law  business 
is  within  the  state,  but  who  resides 
in  an  adjoining  state,  by  depositing 
the  paper  in  a  post  office  in  the  city 
or  town  where  liis  ofllce  is  located, 
properly  inclosed  in  a  postpaid  v.rap- 
per,  directed  to  him  at  his  office.  A 
service  thus  made  is  equivalent  to 
personal  service  upon  him."  N.  Y. 
Code  Civ.  Pro.   §  60. 

Where  a  party  to  an  action,  icho 
Jias  appeared  in  person,  resides  with- 
out the  state,  or  his  residence  can- 
not, with  reasonable  diligence,  be  as- 
certained, and  he  has  not  designated 
an  address,  within  the  state,  upon 
the  preceding  papers,  service  of  a 
paper  upon  him  may  be  made,  by 
serving  it  on  the  clerk.  N.  Y.  Code 
Civ.   Pro.   §   800. 


474 


AUTHORITY    IX    CONDUCTING    T.ITIGATION. 


[§  255 


papers.^  An  irregular  service  at  an  attorney's  office  may  be  waived 
by  him.^  Thus  it  has  been  held  that  where  the  attorney  npon 
whom  a  paper  is  served  objects  to  the  sufficiency  thereof,  he  should 
return  the  same  immediately,^  and  state  the  ground  of  his  objec- 
tion.* detaining  and  acting  on  a  paper  improperly  served  is 
deemed  a  waiver  of  the  objection,^  excepting  where  the  original 
has  been  filed.®  But  neglecting  to  return  a  notice  improperly 
served  on  tlie  party,  instead  of  on  his  attorney,  will  not  estop  the 
party  from  objecting  that  the  service  was  not  made  in  the  man- 
ner prescribed  by  the  statute.'     The  failure  to  return  a  pleading 


1  Anonymous,  19  Wend.  (X.  Y.) 
87. 

2Treftz  r.  Stahl,  4G  111.  App.  462, 
18  L.R.A.  500. 

3  Wright  V.  Forbes,  1  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  240,  wherein  it  was  held  that  a 
delay  of  two  months  was  too  long; 
Stillman  v.  Whitney,  1  How.  Pr.  (N. 
Y. )  243,  holding  that  a  delay  of  a 
week  was  too  long.  In  INIcGown  v. 
Leavenworth,  2  E.  D.  Smith  (N.  Y.) 
24,  it  was  held  that  a  paper  rotinned 
within  twenty-four  hours  after  its 
receipt  was  returned  within  a  "rea- 
sonable  time." 

Second  Return  l^ot  Necessary. — 
After  tlie  plaintiff's  attorney  has  once 
returned  an  answer  because  of  the 
exi)iration  of  the  time  to  answer,  if 
it  is  again  served  liini  lie  is  not  bound 
to  return  it  a  second  time.  .Jacobs 
r.  Marshall,  0  Ducr    (X.  Y.)    689. 

So,  where  an  attorney  prompth  re- 
turned a  notice  of  appeal  served  too 
late,  with  an  indorsement  thereon  of 
the  reason  for  its  return,  it  was  iield 
that  an  omission  tlicrcafter  to  return 
the  printed  case  subsequently  .served 
was  not  a  waiver  of  the  objection,  if 
its  printin<,'  or  service  was  not  in- 
duced  by   any   act  of  hia.     Marsh   i;. 


Pierce,  110  X.  Y.  639,  17  X.  E.  729. 

Where  No  Attorney's  Name  on 
Papers. — Papers  returned  on  ac-count 
of  irregularity,  which  have  no  attor- 
ney's name  on  them,  should  be  re- 
turned to  the  party  himself;  ur  if 
the  party  is  a  municipal  corporation, 
having  a  counsel  luider  statute,  they 
should  be  returned  to  such  counsel. 
Taylor  r.  Xew  York,  11  Abb.  Pr.  (X. 
Y.)    255. 

4  Chemung  Canal  Bank  v.  Judson, 
10  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  133;  White  r. 
Cummings,  3  Sandf.  (X.  Y.)  716. 
See  also  Elile  v.  Hallcr,  6  Bosw.  (X. 
i.)    661. 

5  Wright  i:  Forbes,  1  How.  Pr.  (X. 
Y.)    240;    Travis  v.  Hill,  2  How.   Pr. 

(X.  Y.)  246;  Georgia  Lumber  Co.  v. 
Strong,  3  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  246;  Mc- 
Gown  V.  Leavenworth,  2  E.  D.  Smith 

(X.  Y.)  24.  See  also  Rogers  v.  Rock- 
wood,  20  Civ.  Pro.  212,  13  X.  Y.  S. 
939;  Meislahn  V.  Hanken,  18  X.  Y. 
S.    361. 

6  A  ])arty  always  has  tlie  ri;;ht  to 
move  to  set  aside  a  paper  improperly 
put  on  lile.  Davis  r.  Fitznumville, 
3    llow.    Pr.    (X.   Y.)    108. 

7J'urvis  V.  Gray,  39  llow.  Pr.  (N. 
Y.)  1. 


§    256]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  475 

does  not,  of  course,  preclude  a  defense  as  to  the  allegations  con- 
tained therein.' 

§  256.  Notice  and  Demand.  —  A  duly  authorized  attorney, 
after  employment,  may  give  any  notice,  or  make  any  demand,  af- 
fecting the  substantial  riglits  of  his  client,  that  the  client  might 
himself  have  given  or  made,  and  those  intended  to  be  affected  by 
such  notice  or  demand  must  take  cognizance  thereof,^  even  though 
a  notice  so  given  is  material  to  the  maintenance  of  a  suit.'^"  Thus 
notice  to  the  general  counsel  of  a  corporation  respecting  a  mat- 
ter in  which  he  is  authorized  to  act  for  it,  is  notice  to  the  corpora- 
tion.^^ Those  who  dispute  the  authority  of  an  attorney  to  give  such 
notices  must  prove  their  contention, ^^  for  a  court  of  record  will 
presume  that  an  attorney  is  acting,  in  all  matters  affecting  his 
client's  rights,  with  authority  from  the  client.^^  But  it  has  been 
held  that  the  authority  to  notify  an  adverse  party  that  his  agency 
for  another  is  terminated  is  not,  at  least  before  the  commencement 
of  an  action,  among  the  express  or  implied  powers  of  an  attor- 
ney.^* A  statutory  provision  to  the  effect  that  all  notices  shall 
be  served  upon  the  attorney,  and  not  upon  the  party,  has 
reference  more  particularly  to  notices  of  motions,  and  other  pro- 

8  Wilson    c.   Doran,   110   N.  Y.   101,  O k la Ji o ma. —'Solan    r.    St.    Louis   & 

17  X.  E.  688,  reversing  39  Hiiii  88.  S.  F.  R.  R.  Co.,  19  Okla.  51,  91   Pac. 

s  Alaba IV a.— Spence  v.  Rutledgc,  11  1128. 

Ala.  557.  TV'iscortsm.— Elwcll    v.    Prescott,    38 

Calif c.rnia. — Taylor     V.     Hill.     115  Wis.  274. 

Cal.  143,  44  Pac.  330,  46  Pac.  922.  10  Nolan   v.  St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

///mors.— Champion  Iron  Fence  Co.  19    Okla.    51,   91   Pac.    1128. 

V.  W'ernsing,  19  111.  App.  42.  11  Vogemann    v.   American    Dock    & 

Massachusetts.— ReSiY A  v.  Lodge,  20  Trust  Co.,  131  App.  Div.  216,  lir^  X. 

Pick.  53,  32  Am.  Dec.  197;   Pettis  v.  Y.    S.    741. 

Kellogg,   7   Cush.  456.  12  Xolan   r.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

Michigan.— See  Cady  v.  Fair  Plain  19  Okla.  51,  91   Pac.   1128. 

Literary     Assoc,    135    Mich.   295,    97  13  Xolan   c.   St.  Louis,  etc.,  R.  Co., 

N.  W.  680,  10  Detroit  Leg.  N.  725.  19   Okla.  51,  91   Pac.   1128. 

¥eio  Hampshire. — Stevens  v.  Reed,  As  to  the  presumption  of  authority 

37  X.  H.  49.  generally,  see  supra,   §  230. 

New    York. — Vogemann    v.    Anieri-  HTingley  v.  Parshall,  11  Neb.  443, 

can  Dock,  etc.,  Co.,  131  App.  Div.  216,  9   X.   W.   571. 
115  X.  Y.  S.  741,  affirmed  198  N.  Y. 
586,  92  N.  E.  1105. 


476  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.    [§§    257,  258 

ceedings,  served  during  the  pendency  of  an  action,  and  does  not 
exclude  the  right  of  a  plaintiff  personally  to  serve  a  notice  of  the 
dismissal  of  his  action  upon  the  defendant,  instead  of  on  the 
defendant's  attorney. ^^ 

§  257.  Professional  Relationship  Must  Exist.  —  As  a  gen- 
eral rule,  service  upon  an  attorney,  or  the  acceptance  of  service  by 
him,  is  effective  only  where  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client 
exists;  ^^  thus  in  those  jurisdictions  wherein  it  is  held  that  the 
entry  of  a  final  judgment  terminates  the  relation,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  indicating  a  continuation  thereof,  the  service  of  subse- 
quent notices  on  the  attorney  is  ineffectual.'^'  The  common-law 
rule  that  notice  to  an  attorney  of  record  is  notice  to  his  client,  ap- 
plies only  to  notices  arising  in  the  progress  of  a  cause,  or  to  other 
matters  as  to  which  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  exists  when 
notice  is  given. ^^  But  service  upon  one  who  appears  as  attorney 
of  record  is  valid  although  the  client  may  have  discharged  him  and 
employed  a  new  one,  in  the  al)sence  of  notice  of  such  change  to  the 
adverse  party  or  his  attorney. ^^ 

Admissions  and  Stipulaiions. 

§  258.  Admissions.  —  The  implied  power  of  an  attorney  to 
make  an  admission  of  fact  on  behalf  of  his  client,  within  the  ap- 
parent scope  of  his  authority  in  conducting  litigation,  is  beyond 
question.^"     Admissions  when  so  made  by  the  attorney  bind  the 

15  Gibson  v.  Nelson,  1U  Minn.  183,  Vail,  57  Ore.  128.  100  Pae.  75.J,  110 
126  N.  W.  731,  ]37  Am.  St.  Rep.  549,       Pac.  705. 

31    L.R.A.(N.S.)    523.  See  also  ,s»pra,  §  140. 

16  As  to  tlie  creation  and  torn.iiia-  Compare  Heck  r.  Avondino,  20  Tex. 
tiim  of  tlie  relation  of  attorney  and  Civ.  App.  330,  50  S.  W.  207,  wherein 
eiient,   see  fiiipra,   §§    133-142.  it    was    iield    tliat    notice    of    motion 

17  Konta  V.  St.  Louis  Stock  Excli.,  to  liie  attorneys  of  record  in  a  suit, 
150  Mo.   App.  017,  131    S.  W.   380.  who    liad    ceased    to    represent    their 

18  Konta  r.  St.  Louis  Stock  Exch.,  clients  therein  some  years  prior  therc- 
150  Mo.   App.   017,   131    S.   W.   380.  to,  the  suit  having  been  ofT  the  docket 

19  Grant  /:.  White,  6  Cal.  55;  Lan-  for  six  years,  and  tliey  declining  to 
dyskowski  r.  Lark.  108  Mich.  500,  00  acccjit  it.  stating  that  they  no  longer 
\.  W.  371:  Wood  r.  Ilolnics,  10  N.  represented  defendants,  is  insnflicient. 
\.    Wkly.    iJig.    121;    l)e    \'all    r.    De  20||arniska  r.   Dolph.   133   Fed.  1.18. 


258] 


AUTIIOKITY    IN    COlNDUCTliS'G    LITIGATION. 


477 


client/   aud   dispense  with   the  necessity  of  proof.^      In  the  ab- 
sence of  accident,  mistake,  or  frand,  both  the  client  and  his  attor- 


60  C.  C.  A.  224;  James  v.  Boston  Ele- 
vated R.  Co.,  201  Mass.  2()3,  S7  X. 
E.  474;  Bingham  r.  Winona  County, 
G  Minn.  136;  People  r.  Mole,  85  App. 
Div.  33,  82  N.  Y.  S.  747:  Voisin  r. 
Commercial  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  67  Ilun 
365,  22  N.  Y.  S.  348. 

Admission  on  Trial  of  Capital  Of- 
fense.— It  is  true  that  in  the  trial 
of  capital  offenses  the  court  will  and 
should  exercise  care  and  discretion 
in  respect  to  admissions  made  by  the 
accused  or  by  liis  counsel  in  open 
court,  and  that  every  conviction 
should  be  supported  bj'  some  evi- 
dence produced  in  court,  and  so  even 
a  plea  of  guilty  will  not  ordinarily 
be  accepted.  But  it  is  not  true  that 
an  accused  cannot,  either  by  himself 
or  his  counsel,  in  his  own  interest, 
admit  some  facts  which,  though  nec- 
essary for  the  state  to  establish,  may 
be  consistent  with  his  innocence  and 
the  defense  he  maintains.  Subject 
to  the  reasonable  discretion  of  the 
court  in  the  protection  of  the  ac- 
cused against  improvidence  or  mis- 
take, admissions  during  the  trial  by 
the  accused  or  his  counsel  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  a  document:  admis- 
sions as  to  the  testimony  a  witness 
not  produced  would  give  if  present, 
or  the  fact  his  testimony  would 
establish,  voluntarily  made  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  a  postpone- 
ment of  the  trial ;  and  admissions  in 
the  interest  of  the  accused  limiting 
the  issue  to  the  material  facts  upon 
which  alone  his  successful  defense 
depends,  have  long  been  permitted 
under  our  practice,  and  we  tliink 
their    lawfulness    and    propriety    rest 


ujx)!!  sound  reason.  State  v.  Marx, 
78  Conn.  18,  00  Atl.  690. 

Admissions  by  attorney  as  evidence, 
see  strpra,  §§   193-108. 

1  Illinois. — \^'ilson  l".  Spring,  64  111. 
14. 

Indian  Territory. — Dorrance  r.  Mc- 
Alester,  1  Ind.  Ter.  473,  45  S.  W.  141. 

Kansas. — Central  Branch  Union 
Pac.  R.  Co.  V.  Shoup,  28  Kan.  394,  42 
Am.  Rep.  163. 

Kcntiickjf. — Talbot   v.  McGee,   4   T. 

B.  Mon.  375. 

Massachusetts. — Lewis  r.  Sumner, 
13  Mete.  269. 

Mississippi. — Wemans  V.  Lindsey, 
1  How.  577. 

New  yo?-/c.— Oliver  v.  Bennett,  65 
X.  Y.  559;  People  V.  Westchester 
County,  00  Hun  585  mem.,  15  N.  Y.  S. 
580. 

Xortli  Carolina. — Brooks  c.  Brooks, 
90  N.  C.  142;  J.  L.  Roper  Lumber  Co. 
r.  Elizabeth  City  Lumber  Co.,  137  X. 

C.  431,  49  S.  E.  946,  modifying  135 
X.  C.  744,  47  S.  E.  757. 

Oregon. — -Heywood  v.  Doernbecher 
^Nlfg.  Co.,  4S  Ore.  359,  86  Pac.  357,  87 
Pac.  530. 

2  Illinois. — Preston  r.  Davis,  112 
111.  App.  636;  Fidelity  &  Casualty 
Co.  r.  Morrison,  129  111.  App.  360; 
Tananevicz  r.  Lamczyk,  134  111.  App. 
135;  Todd  V.  Daniels,  153  111.  App. 
223. 

3Iassac1iusetts.  —  Westheimer  v. 

State  Loan  Co.,  195  Mass.  510,  81  X. 
E.  289, 

Missouri. — Everett  v.  Marston,  186 
Mo.  587,  85  S.  W.  540. 

New  Jersey. — Patterson  v.  Read,  43 
X.  J.  Eq.  18,  10  Atl.  807. 


478 


AUTHOKITY    l^■    COXBUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§   25i) 


ney  are  estopped  to  deny  them,'  especially  where  they  have  been 
acted  upon.*  Admissions  beyond  the  apparent  scope  of  an  attor- 
ney's authority  do  not,  of  course,  bind  the  client,^  nor  can  the 
rights  of  clients  be  divested  by  the  loose,  unauthorized  expressions 
of  an  attorney.^  Admissions  made  for  the  purpose  of  one  trial  are 
not  binding  in  a  subsequent  trial  of  the  same  cause;'  so,  an  attor- 
ney for  two  plaintiffs  in  separate  suits  has  no  right  to  make  a 
statement  in  one  which  will  bind  his  client  in  the  other.^  So,  also, 
a  client  will  not  be  affected  by  an  erroneous  admission  of  what 
the  law  is  on  a  given  statement  of  fact.^  Admissions  as  evidence 
have  been  heretofore  considered.^" 

§  259.   Stipulations  Generally.  —  The  power  of  an  attorney 
over  the  conduct  of  a  cause  which  he  has  been  retained  to  conduct 


Houth  Carolina. — Daniel  r.  Ray,  1 
Hill  L.  32. 

Matters  of  Ptiblic  Interest. — Ad- 
missions by  counsel  will  not  relieve 
tiie  court  from  considering  grave  ques- 
tions involving  the  public  interest. 
State  V.  Parkinson,  5  Xev.   1.5. 

3  Bochat  V.  Knisely,  144  111.  App. 
551  ;  Patterson  v.  Read,  43  X.  J.  Eq. 
18,  10  Atl.  807;  BoUmann  r.  Boll- 
mann,  6  S.  C.  29:  Cooke  v.  Penning- 
ton, 7  S.  C.  385. 

4  Ives  V.  Ives,  SO  Hun  136,  29  N.  Y. 
S.  1053,  modifyinfj  7  -Misc.  328,  28  N. 
Y.  S.  170:  Ex  p.  Jones,  47  S.  C.  393, 
25  S.  E.  285. 

5  Solomon  R.  Co.  f.  Jones,  34  Kan. 
443,  8  Pac.  730 ;  Lytle  v.  Crawford,  0!) 
App.  Div.  273,  32  Civ.  Proe.  360,  74 
X.  Y.  S.  660;  Asheville  Supply  & 
Foundry  Co.  v.  Machin,  150  X.  C.  738, 
04  S.  E.  887;  Mathews  c.  Massey,  4 
Baxt.  (Tcnn.)  450,  foil  owing  Holker 
V.  i'aiker,  7  (ranch  436,  3  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)   396. 

It  is  not  witliiii  \\\<-  jirovince  or  aii- 
tlioritv    of    tiie   attornry    at    law   em- 


ployed by  the  depositary  to  defend 
an  action  brought  by  the  depositor 
for  the  destruction  of  the  deposit,  to 
make  in  pais  admissions  or  state- 
ments in  respect  to  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  destruction  occurred. 
Wilson  r.  Southern  Pac.  R.  Co.,  53 
Cal.    735. 

6Harvin  r.  Blackman,  108  La.  426, 
32  So.  452;  Sullivan  v.  Dunham,  35 
App.  Div.  342,  54  N.  Y.  S.  962;  Mc- 
Garry  v.  McGarry,  9  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
71,  29  Pittsb.  Leg.  J.  X.  S.  236,  43 
W.  X^^.  C.  268;  Steele  v.  Jennings,  1 
McMul.  L.    (S.  C.)    297. 

7  Daneri  r.  Gazzola,  2  Cal.  App. 
351.  83  Pac.  455.  See  also  State  V. 
Buchanan,  Wriglit  (Oliio)  233.  And 
see  supra,  §  198. 

8  State  V.  Easterling,  1  Rich.  L. 
(S.  C.)  310.  See  also  Hast  i\  Pied- 
mont &  C.  R.  Co.,  52  \V.  Va.  39(i.  44 
S.  E.  155. 

9  Mitchell  V.  Cotten.  3  Eia.  134. 
See  also  Ilarvin  r.  Blackinun,  108  La. 
426,   32   So.  452. 

lOSeesMpra,  §§  193-198. 


§  259] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


479 


is  co-extensive  with  that  of  his  client.^^  He  has  implied  authority 
to  bind  his  client  in  all  matters  which  relate  to  the  prosecution  or 
defense  of  his  rights,  and,  therefore,  to  make  all  such  lawful  agree- 
ments as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  lead  to  or  secure  the  object  of 
his  employment,  and  settle  by  agreement  or  waiver  any  and  all 
questions  which  incidentally  arise  during  the  progress  of  the  trial. 
In  many  jurisdictions  this  rule  has  been  made  statutory, ^^  Such 
agreements  are  binding  on  the  parties/^  even  though  the  attorney 
fails  to  observe  his  client's  instructions,'^*  and  will  not  be  set  aside 
except  for  fraud,  collusion,  accident,  surprise,  or  some  ground  of 
this  nature.''^  Justice  requires  that  agreements  fairly  made  be- 
tween attorneys  or  parties  in  the  progress  of  a  cause,  relating  to 
the  conduct  of  the  suit,  should  be  fairly  and  faithfully  enforced, 
not  because  they  are  technically  contracts  and  legally  binding 
upon  the  jiarties,  but  because  the  administration  of  justice  is  there- 
by facilitated.'^®  An  agreement  to  waive  an  irregularity,  to  post- 
pone or  delay  a  trial,  to  take  short  notice  of  argument,  to  permit 
a  cause  to  be  brought  to  hearing  summarih',  and  similar  arrange- 


11  Kent  V.  Ricards,  3  Md.  Ch.  392. 
And  see  supra,  §  246  et  seq. 

l^Senn  v.  Joseph,  106  Ala.  454,  17 
So.  543;  Wadsworth  v.  First  Nat. 
Bank,  124  Ala.  440,  27  So.  460. 

^3  Alabama . — B.  F.  Roden  Grocery 
Co.  V.  McAfee,  160  Ala.  564,  49  So. 
402. 

California. — Ilart  v.  Spalding,  1 
Cal.  213;  Odd  Fellows'  Sav.  Bank  v. 
Brander,  124  Cal.  255,  56  Pac.  1109; 
Teich  V.  San  Jose  Safe  Deposit  Bank 
of  Savings,  8  Cal.  App.  397,  97  Pac. 
167. 

Illinois. — Elgin,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Fletcher,  128  111.  619,  21  N.  E.  577. 

Indiana. — Garrigan  v.  Dickey,  1 
Ind.  App.  421,  27  N.  E.  713. 

Maryland. — L^on  ;;.  Hires,  91  Md. 
411,  46  Atl.  985. 

Missouri. — Letcher  r.  Letcher,  50 
Mo.   137;    Pratt  v.   Conway,   148   Mo. 


291,  49  S.  \Y.  1028,  71  Am.  St.  Rep. 
602. 

Xew  York. — Wilcox  v.  Woodhall,  2 
Caines  250;  Gorham  v.  Gale,  7  Cow. 
739,  17  Am.  Dec.  549;  Mark  r.  Buf- 
falo, 87  K  Y.  184. 

North  Carolina. — Pierce  r.  Perkins, 
17  X.  C.  250. 

Texas. — Ward  v.  Wilson.  17  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  28,  43  S.  W.  833,  affirmed 
92  Tex.  22,  45  S.  W.  8. 

l^Harrill  r.  Soutliern  R.  Co.,  144 
N.  C.  542,  57  S.  E.  382. 

15  Ex  p.  Hayes,  92  Ala.  120,  9  So. 
156;  Wadsworth  r.  First  Nat.  Bank, 
124  Ala.  440,  27  So.  460;  Palliser  r. 
Home  Telephone  Co.,  170  Ala.  341,  54 
So.  499:  Perkerson  r.  Reams,  84  Ga. 
298,  10  S.  E.  624;  Lorimer  v.  Lori- 
mer,  124  Mich.  631,  83  N.  W.  609,  7 
Detroit  Leg.  N.  367. 

16  Howe  V.  Lawrence,  22  N.  J.  L. 
99. 


480 


AUTHORITY    IX    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  251) 


iiients.  do  not  partake  of  the  essence  of  legal  contracts.  They  are 
founded  upon  no  consideration,  require  no  mutuality,  and,  if  vio- 
lated, no  action  lies  for  their  breach.  The  court  may  refuse  to  en- 
force them  unless  they  are  reduced  to  writing  and  filed,  or  they 
may  enforce  them,  in  whole  or  in  part,  at  their  discretion.  In 
short,  they  are  regarded  as  a  part  of  the  machinery  for  the  conduct 
of  the  cause  entirely  under  the  control  of  the  court,  and  they  will 
be  enforced,  or  not,  as  the  substantial  rights  of  the  parties  and 
the  ends  of  justice  may  require. ■'^  Stipulations  may  be  agreed  upon 
by  attorneys  for  municipal  or  (ji/a.s<-municipal  bodies  as  well  as 
for  individual  clients,''^  and  before  as  well  as  after  the  institution 
of  suit.'^^  So,  it  has  been  held  that  counsel  may  enter  into  stipula- 
tions relative  to  the  conduct  of  litigation  in  courts  not  of  record.^" 
Stipulations  beyond  the  scope  of  the  attorney's  general  authority, 
however,  are  not  binding,  excepting  wdiere  he  is  specially  author- 
ized to  enter  into  them.-^  In  no  case  can  an  attorney  stipulate  for 
one  who  is  not  his  client ;  and,  as  a  general  rule,  a  stipulation  en- 
tered into  by  attorneys  other  than  those  who  appear  of  record  for 
the  parties,  will  be  disregarded ;  ^  but  the  termination  of  the  pro- 
fessional relation  does  not  vitiate  a  stipulation  previously  entered 


17  Howe  r.  Lawrence,  22  X.  J.  L. 
91). 

18  Lockwood  V.  Blackhawk  County, 
34  Iowa  235  (county  solicitors  may 
stipulate)  ;  Municipality  Xo.  2  r.  Or- 
leans Cotton  Press,  3  8  La.  122,  36 
Am.  Dee.  624  (counsel  for  municipal- 
ity ma,v  make  admission  for  the  cor- 
poration) . 

i9IIefTerman  r.  lUirt,  7  Iowa  320, 
71    Am.   Dec.  44,5. 

But  see  infra,  §  272. 

20  Suspension  Jiridge  v.  Bedford,  4(i 
Ilun  07.J,  ]0  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  850. 

1  ///iHoi.s.— Wabash,  St.  L.  &  P.  it. 
Co.  r.  McDougall,  ]2(i  III.  111.  18  X. 
K.  2!)1,  !)  Am.  St.  Rep.  r,:','.),  1  L.IL.V. 
207;  Chicago  Gen.  R.  Co.  /".  Murray, 
174  111.  2.-)n,  .-.1  X.  v..  24.1;  i)u  I'ont  r. 
Chiciifro  Sanilaiy  Di.st.,  203  ill.  170, 
67  .\.  K.  815. 


Kentuckij. — Xational  Bank  of  Com- 
merce V.  Bowman,  100  S.  W.  831,  30 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  1236. 

Lou  isiana. — Poussin's  Succession, 
27  La.  Ann.  296. 

Missouri. — Linck  r.  Linck,  214  Mo. 
464,  113  S.  W.  1096. 

New  York. — Babcock  v.  Arkenburg, 
42  Huu  660  mem.,  4  X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
467. 

I'cinisjiivania. — Luzerne  Bldg.  & 
Sav.  Assoc,  r.  People's  Sav.  Bank,  142 
Pa.  St.  ]21,  21  Atl.  806. 

Tennessee. — Rice  ;;.  Hunt,  12 
Call  498. 

Virginia. —  Herbert  r.  Alexander,  2 
Heisk.   344. 

2  Illinois. — Windmiller  /■.  Chapman, 
38    111.  App.  276. 

loira. — Beeman  r.  Kitzman,  124 
Iowa  86,  99  X.  W.  171. 


§    2G0]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  481 

into  by  the  attorney  within  the  scope  of  his  authority.^  The 
autliority  of  an  attorney  to  make  or  alter  contracts  for  his  client 
generally  has  been  considered  heretofore.*  Specific  instances  of 
stipulation,  and  agreements  in  the  nature  thereof,  are  considered 
throughout  this  chapter/ 

§  260.  In  Matters  of  Procedure.  —  In  considering  an  attor- 
ney's authority  in  conducting  litigation  generally,  reference  has 
been  made  to  the  exclusiveness  of  his  control  in  matters  of  pro- 
cedure.^ It  merely  remains  to  be  stated  here  that,  by  virtue  of  this 
control,  an  attorney's  stipulations  as  to  such  matters  are  binding 
upon  his  client ;  thus  he  may  agree  to  the  amendment  of  pleadings,' 
or  to  an  extension  of  the  time  for  the  service,^  or  filing  thereof.^ 
So  he  can  agree  that  a  defendant  may  withdraw  his  answer  and 
file  a  demurrer  on  condition  that,  in  case  the  demurrer  is  overruled, 
final  judgment  shall  be  entered  thereon.^"  An  attorney  may  also 
stipulate  that  notice  of  appeal  may  be  given  and  a  statement  of 
facts  settled  after  the  expiration  of  the  time  limited  by  law,^^  or 
that  an  appeal  has  in  fact  been  taken  and  perfected,  and  that  all 
the  evidence  has  been  certified  to,  and  made  a  part  of  the  record 
by  the  trial  judge, ^^  or  for  the  affirmance  of  an  order  of  the  court 

Missouri. — Zahra   r.    Royal    Frater-  5  See  the  analysis  preceding  §  24G. 

nal  Union,  154  Mo.  App.  70,  133  S.  W.  6  See  supra,  §  249. 

374.  1  Brown  v.  Spiegel,   156  Mich.  138, 

New    Tor/,. —Baron    v.    Cohen,    62  120  N.  W.  579,  16  Detroit  Leg.  N.  43; 

How.  Pr.  367.  Illinois  Steel  Co.  v.  Warras,  141  Wis. 

North    Carolina.— Henry    v.     Hill-  ^^9'  ^23  N.  W.  656. 

iard,  120  N.  C.  479.  27  S.  E.  130.  «  Ducker  v.  Rapp,  67  N.  Y.  464.  re- 

An  attorney  of  a  trustee,  by  virtue  ''^^'''^  "^^  ^"P"'-  ^t-  235;   Morris  v. 

of  his  emplovment  to  prosecute  a  cer-      ^''^'^  ^''^-  ^°-  ^^  ^'^PP'  ^'''-  ^^3.  13 

N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  343,  90  N.  Y.  S.  673. 

9  Tevis  V.  Palatine  Ins.  Co.,  149  Fed. 
560;    Brooks    ?'.    Cavanaugh,    11    La. 
.  Ann.   183.     See  also   Wylie  v.  Sierra 

htigat.on,  he  has  no  authority  to  prej-      q^j^  ^o.,  120  Cal.  485,  52  Pac.  809. 
udice  the  rights  of  the  trustee  or  the  lo  Franklin  v.  National  Ins.  Co.,  43 

cestui  que  trust.     Spaulding  v.  Allen,      ]yjo   49] 

10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  397,  19  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  11  Haas  v.  Gaddis,  1   Wash.  89,  23 

608.  Pac.  1010. 

3Calmes  r.  Stone,  7   La.  Ann.  133.  12  American  Emigrant  Co.  v.  Long, 

*  See  supra,  §  202.  105  Iowa  194,  74  N.  W.  940. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  1,-31. 


tain  action,  has  no  authority  to  waive 
the  rights  of  the  trust  estate.  Ex- 
cept in  the  manner  of  conducting  tlie 


482 


AUTHOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  261 


below/^  or  to  extend  the  time  within  which  a  judge  must  decide  a 
case  which  has  been  submitted  to  him."  He  may  also  stipulate 
that  an  action  shall  not  abate  by  the  death  of  the  plaintiii',^^  or  to 
revive  a  cause  which  has  abated/^  or  that  an  adjotirnment  of  the 
hearing  of  a  motion  shall  not  prejudice  defendant's  rights,  although 
plaintiff  died  before  the  motion  was  heard/'  or  for  the  dissolution 
of  an  attachment.^®  80.  he  may  waive  service  of  process  ^^  and 
pleadings,^"  the  right  to  lile  answer/  inquisition,'^  technical  advan- 
tages/ informalities  and  irregularities/  and  objections  to  the  no- 
tice, and  service  of  notice,  and  the  form  of  the  plaintiff's  writ.^ 
But  a  stipulation  cannot  be  effective  as  against  imperative  statu- 
tory provisions.®  ISTor,  generally,  can  a  party  stipulate  in  his  own 
behalf  where  he  is  represented  by  counsel."'' 


§  261.  As  to  Matters  of  Evidence.  —  Counsel  may  also  stip- 
ulate for  the  introduction  of  competent  evidence  so  as  to  expedite 
the  trial  or  other  proceeding  in  the  cause;  *  thus  they  may  agree 
that  letters  may  be  received  in  evidence  without  calling  the  persons 
by  or  to  whom  they  were  written  as  witnesses,  or  otherwise  proving 
the  handwriting,^  or  that  a  deposition  taken  in  advance  of  trial 
may,  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties,  be  read  on  the 


13  In  re  Skelly's  Estate,  21  S.  D. 
4-24,  113  N.  W.  91. 

i4Litt  r.  Stewart,  62  N.  Y.  S.  1114. 

15  Cox  i:  New  York,  Cent.  &  H.  R. 
R.  Co.,  63  N.  Y.  414,  reversing  6 
Thomp.   &    C.    40.5. 

16  (lark  r.  Parish,  1  I5il)b  (Ky.) 
541. 

17  Hunt  r.  lltiiit.  154  Apj).  Div.  833, 
139  N.  Y.  S.  41:!. 

isrjrown  r.  Si)ico;el.  156  Micli.  138, 
120  X.  \V.  579,   16  Detroit  Lejr.  N.  43. 

19  Patterson  /.  llead.  43  .\.  .1.  Eq. 
18.  10  At!.  807. 

20  People  r.  Hoyd,  2  luiw.  (N.  Y.) 
.516.      See  supra.  §  253  et   seq. 

1  J'atterson  r.  Itead,  43  X.  .F.  Kq. 
18,   10  AM.  807. 

2  Kissi.k  r.  ilmitcr.  184  Pa.  St.  174, 
:!!i  Atl.  83,  41   W.  N.  C.  377. 


3Gorliam  r.  Gale,  7  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
739,  17  Am.  Dec.  549. 

4  Hanson  r.  Hoitt.  14  N.  H.  56. 
See  also  State  v.  Tuller,  34  Conn.  280. 

5  Alton  r.  Gihnanton,  2  N.  H.  520. 

6  E\-  p.  Dennis,  48  Ala.  304.  See 
also  State  v.  Gratiot,  17  Wis.  245. 

7  Niglitingale  r.  Oregon  Cent.  R. 
Co.,  2  Sawy.  338,  IS  Fed.  (;as.  No. 
10,264:  Bonnificld  r.  Thorj),  71  Fed. 
924:  Enrhart  r.  U.  S..  30  Ct.  CI.  343: 
Wylie  /•.  Sierra  Gold  Co.,  120  Cal. 
485.  52  Pac.  809;  Crescent  Canal  Co. 
r.  Montgomery.  124  Cal.  134,  56  Pac. 
797:  McConnell  r.  Prown.  40  Ind.  384. 
See  also  sitpra,  §§  248.  249. 

8  Holmes  v.  State,,  82  Neb.  406,  118 
N.   W.  99. 

9||(diiies  /;.  State,  82  Neb.  406,  118 
N.    W.  99. 


§    262]  AUTIIOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


483 


trial  of  another  action.^"  So  counsel  may,  by  stipulation,  waive 
certain  objections  to  the  introduction  of  evidence.^^ 

§  262.  That  One  Suit  Shall  Abide  Decision  of  Another.  — 

Where  two  cases  involve  the  same  questions  of  law  and  fact  ^^  an 
attorney  may  bind  his  client  by  a  stipulation  that  the  trial  of  one 
shall  determine  the  issues  in  the  other, ^^  unless  it  has  been  im- 
providently,  fraudulently,  or  collusively  niade.^*  Such  an  ag-ree- 
ment  may  be  entered  into  by  an  attorney  even  after  judgment  in 
favor  of  his  client,  and  after  the  term,  but  within  the  time  for  pro- 
curing an  appeal  or  writ  of  error,^*  and  even  though  the  case,  the 
result  of  which  is  to  bind  the  parties,  is  conducted  by  other  coun- 


10  Ludeman  r.  Third  Ave.  R.  Co.,  72 
App.  Div.  26,  70  X.  Y.  S.  128. 

n  Alton  <:.  Gilmaiiton,  2  N.  H.  520; 
Daniel  v.  Ray,  1  Hill  L.   (S.  C.)  32. 

Where,  prior  to  the  death  of  a 
passenger  from  injuries  sustained,  a 
suit  was  brought  to  perpetuate  his 
testimony,  and  the  carrier's  general 
attorney,  before  the  passenger's  depo- 
sition was  taken,  agreed  with  plain- 
tiff and  such  passenger  that  if  he 
would  not  give  his  deposition  until 
after  the  physician  advised  tliat  he 
would  die,  or  if  anything  should  liap- 
pen  that  he  did  not  so  testify,  evi- 
dence miglit  be  given  in  any  suit 
thereafter  brought  by  plaintifi'  or  oth- 
ers as  to  what  such  passenger  said 
was  tlie  cause,  character,  and  extent 
of  liis  injuries,  and  the  deposition  was 
tlien  abandoned,  such  agreement  was 
within  tlie  scope  of  the  attorney's  au- 
thority. Thomp?on  r.  Ft.  Worth  & 
R.  G.  R.  Co.,  31  Tex.  Civ.  App.  583,  73 
S.  W.  29. 

12  Louisville  Trust  Co.  v.  Stone,  88 
Fed.  407,  affirmed  174  U.  S.  429,  19  S. 
Ct.  875,  43  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  3034;  Ei- 
dam  V.  Finnegan,  48  Minn.  53,  50  N. 


W.  933,  16  L.R.A.  507;  Dewar  V.  Orr, 
3   Cli.  Chamb.    (Ont.)    224. 

13  United  States. — Stone  r.  Bank  of 
Commerce,  174  U.  S.  412,  19  S.  Ct. 
747,  43  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  1028;  Brown 
c.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723,  67  C.  C.  A. 
125,  reversiny  127  Fed.  387. 

Georgia. — Commercial  Union  Assur. 
Co.,  t.  Chattahoocliee  Lumber  Co., 
130  Ga.  191,  60  S.  E.  554. 

loica. — Ohlquest  r.  Farwell,  71 
Iowa  231,  .32  N.  W^  277. 

Kansas. — Southern  Kansas  R.  Co. 
r.  Pavey,  57  Kan.  521,  46  Pac.  969. 

Minnesota. — Eidam  v.  Finnegan, 
48  Minn.  53,  50  N.  W.  933.  16  L.R.A. 
507. 

Missouri. — North  Missouri  R.  Co. 
r.  Stephens,  36  :Mo.  150,  88  Am.  Dec. 
138;  Schaeffer  r.  Siegel,  9  Mo.  App. 
594;  Galbreath  r.  Rogers,  30  Mo.  App. 
401  ;  Scarritt  Furniture  Co.  v.  Moser, 
48  Mo.  App.  543. 

14  Eidam  r.  Finnegan,  48  Minn.  53, 
50  N.  W.  933.  16  L.R.A.  507. 

15  Brown  r.  Arnold,  131  Fed.  723, 
67  C.  C.  A.  125,  reversing  127  Fed. 
387. 


484 


AUTKOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  26; 


sel."  The  suit  must  be  actually  pending,  however,  and  not  mere- 
ly in  contemplation.^'  But  an  attorney  employed  by  a  guardian 
ad  litem  has  no  such  general  authority.  Such  a  stipulation  does 
not  bind  the  minor  unless  approved  and  ratified  by  the  court  on 
proof  that  it  is  for  the  interest,  or  at  least  not  against  the  interest, 
of  the  minor,  and  it  must  also  appear  that  the  matters  in  contro- 
versy in  the  two  actions  were,  so  far  as  the  minor  was  concerned, 
precisely  the  same,  and  that  the  same  guardian  ad  litem  appeared 
for  him  in  both  actions."  An  attorney  has  no  power  by  virtue  of 
his  retainer  to  bind  his  client  by  an  agreement  that  the  client's 
case  shall  depend  on  the  result  of  another  case,  having  nothing 
in  common  with  it  except  identity  of  parties.^^ 

§  263.  Waiver  of  Client's  Rights. —  An  attorney  has  not,  by 
virtue  of  his  general  authority,  the  right  to  waive  his  client's  sub- 
stantial rights  by  stipulation  or  otherwise.^"  Thus  he  cannot  com- 
promise or  release  the  client's  just  demands,^  or  waive  a  substan- 
tial defense,*  such,  for  instance,  as  the  statute  of  limitations,'  or 
the  requirement  of  the  filing  of  a  claim  in  administration  proceed- 
ings.'* Kor  can  counsel  employed  to  defend  in  one  action,  barter 
away  their  client's  rights  in  another.^  This  section  should  be  read 
in  connection  with  the  other  sections  appearing  in  this  subdivision.^ 
It  is  evident  that  an  attorney's  authority  to  make  admissions  of 


l6Scarritt  Furniture  Co.  v.  Moser, 
48  Mo.  App.  543. 

17  Stone  V.  Bank  of  Commerce,  174 
U.  S.  412,  19  S.  Ct.  747,  43  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    1028. 

18  Eidam  v.  Finnegan,  48  Minn.  53, 
50  N.  W.  933,  16  L.R.A.  507. 

i9De\var  v.  Orr,  3  Ch.  Ciiamb. 
(Ont.)  224.  See  also  supra,  note  12, 
this   section. 

20  iJusli  V.  Visant,  40  Ark.  124; 
Winn's  Succession,  30  La.  Ann.  702; 
Person  v.  Leathers,  G7  Miss.  548,  7 
So.  391.  See  also  In  re  Devoe,  Myr. 
Prob.  (Cal.)  6,  wherein  tlie  party  in 
interest  was  a  minor. 

iSee  sufn-a,  §§  215-228. 


2  Warwick  v.  Marlatt,  25  N.  J.  Eq. 
188.  See  also  Arthur  r.  Homestead 
Fire  Ins.  Co.,  78  N.  Y.  462,  34  Am. 
Rep.  550. 

3  See  Spreckels  v.  Ord,  72  Cal.  86, 
13  Pac.  158;  Houghton  r.  Ellis,  19 
Colo.  App.  125,  73  Pac.  752;  Steele  v. 
Jennings,  1  McMull.  L.  (S.  C.)  297; 
Walrod  i'.  Manson,  23  Wis.  393,  99 
Am.  Dec.  187 ;  Brown  r.  Parker,  28 
Wis.  21;  Kahn  v.  Lesser,  97  Wis.  217, 
72  N.  W.  739. 

«  Andrews  r.  O'Reilly,  34  R.  I.  256, 
83  Atl.  119. 

SMarbourg  v.  Smith,   11  Kan.  554. 
6  See  supra,  §  258  et  scq. 


§    204]  AUTIIOIUTY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  485 

fact  may  warrant  liiiii,  wlicii  actiiiii;  in  good  faith,  in  waiving  what 
would  otherwise  constitute  a  gooil  defense.'  So,  the  implied  au- 
thority of  an  attorney  respecting  matters  of  procedure  *  has  been 
held  to  warrant  the  allowance  of  an  amendment,  by  the  adverse 
party,  so  as  to  render  available  to  him  a  defense  which  otherwise 
he  could  not  set  up.^ 

§  264.  Manner  of  Stipulating.  —  In  nearly  every  jurisdic- 
tion it  is  now  required,  either  by  virtue  of  statutory  or  court  rule 
regulation,  that  all  stipulations  agreed  upon  by  counsel,  and  par- 
ticularly those  which  affect  the  substantial  rights  of  the  parties, 
shall  be  reduced  to  writing,  signed  by  the  attorneys  for  the  respec- 
tive parties,  and  filed  of  record  in  the  cause. ^^  In  the  absence  of 
such  regulation,  however,  both  the  attorneys  and  their  clients  will 
be  bound  by  oral  stipulations  fairly  and  honestly  made,"  subject, 
hoAvever,  to  the  discretionary  supervision  of  the  court.^^  So,  stipu- 
lations made  in  open  court  are,  as  a  rule,  as  effective  as  if  agreed 
upon  in  writing  and  filed."  And  a  client  is  bound  by  a  statement 
of  his  counsel  in  his  presence  unless  he  then  and  there  repudiates 
it.^*  It  has  been  held  that  a  statute  authorizing  an  attorney  to  bind 
his  client  by  his  agreement  filed  with  the  clerk  or  entered  on  the 
minutes  of  the  court,  refers  only  to  executory  agreements ;  and 
where  by  a  verbal  stipulation  one  party  has  received  an  advantage, 
or  another  party  has,  at  his  instance,  given  up  some  right  or  lost 
some  advantage,  so  that  it  would  be  inequitable  to  insist  that  the 

7  See  Bingham  v.  Winona  County,  Michigan. — Scott  V.  Chambers,  62 
6  Minn.   136.  Mich.  532,  29  N.  W.  04. 

8  See  supra,  §  260.  New  York. — Jefferson  Bank  v.  Gos- 

9  Brown   v.  Spiegel,   ]56  Mich.  ]38,  sett,  45  Misc.  630,  90  N.  Y.  S.  1049. 
]20   N.    W.   579,   16   Detroit   Leg.   N.  South  Dakota. — Gibson  v.  Allen,  18 
43.  S.  D.  417,  100  N.  W.  1096. 

10  California. — Coonan  v.  Locwen-  H  See  Godwin  v.  State,  1  Boyce 
thai,  129  Cal.  197,  61  Pac.  940;  Eph-       (Del.)    173,  74  Atl.  IIOI. 

raim  v.  Pacific  Bank,  149  Cal.  222,  86  12  Howe  V.  Lawrence,  22  N.  J.  L.  99. 

Pac.  507;    Daneri  v.  Gazzola,  2   Cal.  And  see  supra,  §  260  notes. 

App.  351,  83  Pac.  455.  13  Coonan   v.   Loewenthal,    129    Cal. 

Indiana. — Garrigan     v.    Dickey,     1  197,  61  Pac.  940;  Godwin  v.  State,  1 

Ind.  App.  421,  27  N.  E.  713.  Boyce   (Del.)    173,  74  Atl.  1101. 

/ori-a.— Baily      ('.      Birkhofer,      123  14  Tolbert  V.  State,   (Ga.)    78  S.  E. 

Iowa  59,  98  N.  W.  594.  131. 


486  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIG  .VTION.  [§§    265,  2G6 

stipulation  was  invalid,  the  party  iKiiotited  will  not  be  permitted 
to  repudiate  the  agreeuient,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  entered 
on  the  minutes  of  the  court,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  other  party/^ 
But  where  a  statute  provided  that  no  evidence  of  any  such  agree- 
ment is  receivable,  except  the  statement  of  the  attorney  himself,  his 
written  agreement  signed  and  filed  with  the  clerk,  or  an  entry 
thereof  upon  the  records  of  the  court,  it  was  held  that  an  affidavit 
of  one  of  the  attorneys  was  not  competent  evidence  of  an  agree- 
ment between  him  and  the  attorney  for  the  adverse  party.^® 

§  265.  Admissions  and  Stipulations  Made  under  Mistake 
of  Fact.  —  It  is  a  settled  principle  with  the  court,  that  its  suitors 
shall  not  be  prejudiced  by  the  mistakes  or  misprisions  of  its  offi- 
cers ;  ^'  and,  on  a  sufficient  showing  thereof,  relief  will  be  afforded 
where,  nnder  a  mistake  of  fact,  an  attorney  has,  on  behalf  of  his 
client,  entered  into  a  stipulation,^^  or  made  an  admission, ^^  which 
otherwise  would  have  bound  his  client.  It  has  been  held,  hov/ever, 
that  a  stipulation  cannot  be  set  aside  for  a  mistake  caused  by  the 
negligence  of  the  attorney  alleging  it,  aud  not  occasioned  in  any 
way  by  the  opposing  attorney;  especially  where  the  latter  has  been 
induced  by  the  agreement  to  change  his  position.^" 

Trial,  Arbitration  and  Beference. 

§  266.  Conduct  of  Trial.  —  Whatever  is  done  by  the  attor- 
ney in  the  progress  of  a  trial  is  considered  as  having  been  done  by 

15  Dancri  v.  CJazzola,  2  Cal.  App.  Missouri. — St.  Louis  &  S.  F.  R.  Co. 
:5.il,  83  Pac.  455.  See  also  Kogers  v.  v.  Epperson,  97  Mo.  300,  10  S.  W. 
(Jreenwood,  14  Minn.  .3,33.  478. 

16  IJaiiy  '■.  Birkhofer,  ]23  la.  59,  Tennessee. — Gates  r.  Brinkley,  4 
9S    X.    \V.    594.     See    also    Gibson    r.  Lea  710. 

Allen,    18  S.  D.  417,   100  N.  W.   1096.  Ver7)iont.—U.  S.  r.  U.  S.  Fidelity  & 

HNeele    r.    Benyliill,    4    Unw.    Vv.  (Guaranty  Co.,  83  Vt.  278,  75  Atl.  280. 

(X.   Y.)    10.  19  Parker  r.  MePee,   Gl    Miss.   134; 

18   I /„/,,/,„</.-    iliirvcy   r.   Tliurpe,  28  U.    S.    r.   V.   S.    Fidelity    &   Guaranty 

Ala.  250,  05  Am.  IJee.  344.  Co.,  83  Vt.  278,  75  Atl.  280. 

Minnesota. — Seliaefer      /'.      Selioen-  20  Rogers    V.    Greenwood,    14    JMinii. 

iHjrn.  94  .Minn.  490,  103  N.  W.  .501.  333. 

Mississippi. — Parker   V.   McBee,   61 
Mi.ss.    134. 


§  266] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


487 


the  authority  of,  and  is  binding  on,  liis  client/  Thas  an  appcHant 
is  bound  by  the  attitude  taken  by  his  attorney  on  the  trial  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  action,  although  on  appeal  he  is  represented  by  a  dif- 
ferent attorney.^  So,  an  attorney  may  waive  objections  to  the  ad- 
mission of  evidence,^  and  make  any  admission  of  fact  which  the 
party  himself  could  have  made ;  *  an  agreement  on  a  matter  of  law, 
however,  will  be  disregarded.^  An  attorney  may  also  waive  a  trial 
by  jury.®    So  he  may  when  necessary  agree  to  the  withdrawal  of  a 


1  United  iitates. — Manning  v.  Hay- 
den,  5  Sawy.  360,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
9,04.3. 

Alahama. — Rosenbaiim  r.  State,  33 
Ala.  354. 

California. — Mott  f.  De  Reyes,  45 
Cal.  379. 

Colorado. — Warner  r.  Gunnison,  2 
Colo.  App.   430,   31    Pac.   238. 

Kentvckif.  —  Smith  v.  Dixon,  3 
Mete.   438. 

Maryland. — Henck  v.  Todhunter,  7 
Har.  &  J.  275,  16  Am.  Dec.  300; 
Thornburg  v.  Macauley,  2  Md.  Ch. 
425;  African  Methodist  Bethel  Churcli 
V.  Car  mack,  2  Md.  Ch.  143. 

New  Jersey. — McDowell  v.  Perrine, 
36  N.  J.  Eq.  632. 

Neio  York. — Deen  v.  Milne,  41  Hun 
645  mem.,  4  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  129. 

North  Carolina. — Greenlee  v.  Mc- 
Dowell, 39  N.  C.  481;  Guy  v.  Manuel, 
89  N.  C.  83. 

A  waiver  of  all  informalities  and 
irregularities  made  by  a  counselor 
who  has  the  sole  charge  of  a  cause,  is 
binding  upon  liis  client.  Hanson  v. 
Hoitt,  14  N.  H.  50. 

2Peteler  Portable  R.  Mfg.  Co.  v. 
Northwestern  Adamant  Mfg.  Co.,  60 
Minn.  127,  01  N.  W.  1024. 

Bound  hy  Attorney's  Mistake. — A 
client  is  concluded  by  the  acts  of  his 
counsel  in  making  a  mistake  as  to  the 
defense  to  be  pleaded  to  a  suit,  espe- 


cially where  the  client  did  not  seek 
to  have  the  mistake  corrected,  but  re- 
lied on  it  both  in  the  trial  court, 
where  he  was  present,  and  on  appeal., 
Jamison  v.  May,  13  Ark.  600. 

3  In  re  Ross,  136  Cal.  629,  69  Pac. 
430;  Garrett  r.  Hanshue,  53  Ohio  St. 
482,  42  N.  E.  256,  35  L.R.A.  321. 

Where  an  attorney  is  employed 
merely  to  attend  the  taking  of  a  dep- 
osition, he  cannot  waive  exceptions  to 
the  competency  of  a  witness,  the  per- 
tinency of  his  testimony,  or  its  admis- 
sibility under  the  pleadings.  Mc- 
Chirg  V.  Willard,  5  Watts   (Pa.)   275. 

^Alabama. — Starke  v.  Kenan,  11 
Ala.  818. 

Illinois. — Wilson  v.  Spring,  64  111. 
14. 

Kentucky.— T&lhot  V.  McGee,  4  T. 
B.  Mon.  375. 

Maryland. — Farmers'  Bank  v. 
Sprigg,  11  Md.  389. 

New  Hampshire. — Alton  V.  Gilman- 
ton,  2  N.  H.  520;  Page  c.  Brewster, 
54  N.  H.  184. 

0/^^o.— Garrett  v.  Hanshue,  53  Ohio 
St.  482,  42  N.  E.  256,  35  L.R.A.  321. 

Tennessee. — Tomeny  r.  German  Nat. 
Bank,  9   Heisk.   493. 

Admissions  as  evidence  have  been 
considered  at  §§  193-198. 

5  Holms  r.  Johnston,  12  Heisk. 
(Tenn.)    155. 

6  Whitestown   Milling  Co.   v.  Zahn, 


488 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  [§    207 


juror/  or  to  a  continnauce,^  or  to  a  joinder  of  parties,^  or  that  judg- 
ment be  rendered  on  the  pleadings,"  or  that  a  ease  shall  be  tried 
on  its  merits  without  pleadings/^  or  that  the  opinion  of  a  certain 
court  shall  be  conclusive,^  or  to  dismiss  his  client's  demand  for  his 
second  trial  in  an  action  of  ejectment,^^  or  to  try  his  client  for  a 
misdemeanor  in  his  absence.^*  Matters  of  this  nature  have  been 
considered  generally  in  connection  with  stipulations.^* 


A.S  a  general  rule,  it  is 


§  267.  Arbitration  and  Reference. 

within  the  implied  power  of  an  attorney  to  arbitrate  or  refer  a 
cause  of  action  in  which  he  has  been  retained, ^^  and  to  consent  of 


9  Ind.  App.  270.  36  N.  E.  653;  Lacoste 
r.  Roberts,  11  La.  Ann.  33;  Smith  v. 
Barnes,  9  Misc.  368,  29  N.  Y.  S.  692. 
See  also 

'Strauss  r.  Francis,  L.  R.  1  Q.  B. 
(Eng.)  379.  7  B.  &  S.  36.5,  12  Jur.  X. 
S.  486,  35  L.  J.  Q.  B.  133,  14  L.  T.  N. 
S.  326,  14  W.  R.  634. 

8  Strong  V.  District  of  Columbia,  3 
MacArthur  (D.  C.)  499;  Handy  v.  Mc- 
Clellan,  156  Mo.  App.  454,  137  S.  W. 
280;  Stinnard  V.  New  York  Fire  Ins. 
Co.,  1  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  169.  See  also 
Nightingale  i'.  Oregon  Cent.  R.  Co.,  2 
Sawy.  338,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No.  10,  264. 

Where  plaintiff's  counsel  had  not 
prepared  for  trial,  relying  on  a  con- 
versation witli  defendant's  counsel 
from  wliich  he,  in  good  faith,  believed 
tliat  a  continuance  would  be  agreed 
to,  or  that  he  would  have  been  noti- 
fied to  the  contrary  in  time  to  have 
prepared  for  trial,  it  was  held  that 
the  defendant's  counsel,  in  the  fur- 
tlierance  of  professional  honor,  would 
have  been  justified  in  witlidrawing 
from  the  case  on  his  client  refusing 
to  consent  to  the  continuance.  Handy 
/•.  McCIellan,  156  Mo.  App.  454,  137  S. 
W.  280. 

Fiitt  an  afirrfmrnt  among  counsel, 
for   their  oirn   convenience,   tliat  they 


will  not  try  causes  during  the  summer 
months,  has  been  held  not  to  be  legal- 
ly binding  on  the  parties  to  it.  Rob- 
ert t'.  Commercial  Bank,  13  La.  528, 
33  Am.  Dec.  570. 

9  Fling  V.  Trafton,  33  Me.  295. 

10  McCann  c.  McLennan,  3  Neb.  25. 
"Cook    V.    Allen,    67    N.    Y.    578, 

wherein  it  appears  that  the  pleadings 
were  lost. 

i2Galbreath  v.  Colt,  4  Yeates  (Pa.) 
551. 

13  Bray  v.  Doheny,  39  Minn.  355, 
40  N.  W.  262. 

14  Martin  v.  State,  40  Ark.  364 
(under  statute) . 

15  See  supra,  §  258  et  seq. 

16  England. — Matter  of  Jamieson,  4 
Ad.  &  El.  945,  31  E.  C.  L.  231 ;  Bod- 
ington  r.  Harris,  1  Bing.  187,  8  E.  C. 
L.  464;  Dowse  v.  Coxe,  3  Bing.  20,  11 
E.  C.  L.  12;  Colledge  c.  Horn,  3  Bing. 
119,  11  E.  C.  L.  59;  Swinfen  r.  Swin- 
fen,  18  C.  B.  485,  86  E.  V.  L.  485; 
Buckle  v.  Roach,  1  Chit.  193.  IS  E.  C. 
L.  64:  In  re  Hol)ler,  8  Beav.  101; 
Haillic  r.  Edinburgh  Oil  Gas  Light 
C;o.,  3  CI.  &  F.  639 ;  Paull  V.  Paull,  2 
Cromp.  &  M.  235 :  Thomas  r.  llewes, 
2  Cromp.  &  M.  519;  Adams  r.  Bank- 
art,  1  C.  M.  &  R.  681  ;  Favicll  r.  East- 
ern   Counties    R.    Co.,    2    Exch.    344; 


§  267] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


489 


record  that  tlie  award  be  made  the  judgment  of  the  court;  ^'  and 
in  some  jurisdictions  counsel  have  authority  to  bind  the  parties  bv 
an  agreement  that  the  decision  of  the  arbitrators  shall  be  final. ^' 
It  is  immaterial  that  the  client  whose  cause  is  submitted  to  arbi- 


Swinfen  v.  Chelmsford,  5  H.  &  N.  890; 
]\ro]e  V.  Smith.  1  Jac.  &  W.  645;  Rum- 
sey  i:  King,  .33  L.  T.  N.  S.  728;  Reg. 
V.  Helstoii,  ]0  Mod.  202;  Furnival  v. 
Bogle,  4  Russ.  142;  Latuch  v.  Pash- 
erante,  1  Salk.  86;  Elworthy  /;.  Bird, 
1  Tamlyn  43 ;  Griffiths  v.  Williams,  1 
T.  R.  710;  Banfill  v.  Leigh,  8  T.  R. 
571. 

United  States. — Alexandria  Canal 
Co.  r.  Swann,  5  How.  83,  12  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)  60;  Holker  v.  Parker,  7 
Cranch  436,  3  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  396; 
Denny  r.  Brown,  7  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
3,805;  Abbe  v.  Rood,  6  McLean  106, 
1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  6. 

Alabama. — Beverly  v.  Stephens,  17 
Ala.    701. 

California. — Bates  v.  Visher,  2  Cal. 
355, 

Colorado. — Lee  v.  Grimes,  4  Colo. 
185. 

Georgia. — Wade  v.  Powell,  31  Ga. 
1;  McElreath  v.  Middleton,  89  Ga.  83, 
14  S.  E.  906. 

Kentucky. — Talbot  v.  McGee,  4  T. 
B.  Mon.  377;  Smith  v.  Dixon,  3  Mete. 
438. 

Maine. — Gregory  v.  Pike,  04  Me. 
27,  46  Atl.  793. 

Maryland. — Jones  u.  Horsey,  4  Md. 
306,  59  Am.  Dec.  81 ;  White  V.  David- 
son, 8  Md.  169,  63  Am.  Dec.  090. 

Massachusetts. — Everett  v.  Charles- 
town,  12  Allen  93;  Buckland  v.  Con- 
way, 16  Mass.  396. 

Mississippi. — Jenkins    v.    Gillespie, 

10  Smedes  &  M.  31,  48  Am.  Dec.  732. 

Xeio  Hampshire. — Pike  v.  Emerson, 


5  N.  H.  393,  22  Am.  Dec.  468 ;  Brooks 
r.  New  Durham,  55  N.  H.  559. 

New  Jersey. — Paret  v.  Bayonne,  39 
N.  J.  L.  559. 

New  York. — Gorham  f.  Gale,  7 
Cow.  744,  17  Am.  Dec.  549;  Tilton  v. 
V.  S.  Life  Ins.  Co.,  8  Daly  84;  Tif- 
fany /•.  Lord,  40  How.  Pr.  481.  Com- 
pare McPlierson  r.  Cox,  86  N.  Y.  472. 

North  Carolina. — Morris  v.  Grier, 
76  N.  C.  410. 

Ohio. — Champaign  County  Treas- 
urer V.  Norton,  1  Ohio  270. 

I'cmisylvania. — Somers  r.  Balabre- 
ga,  1  Dall.  164,  1  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  83; 
Wilson  r.  Young,  9  Pa.  St.  101;  Bing- 
ham V.  Guthrie.  19  Pa.  St.  418;  Cole- 
man V.  Grubb,  23  Pa.  St.  393;  Stoke- 
ly  r.  Robinson,  34  Pa.  St.  315;  Evars 
r.  Kamphaus,  59  Pa.  St.  379;  Wil- 
liams c.  Danziger,  91  Pa.  St.  232; 
Williams  r.  Tracey,  95  Pa.  St.  .308; 
Sargeant  v.  Clark,  108  Pa.  St.  588; 
Campbell  r.  Fayette  County,  6  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  132.  See  also  Cahill  v.  Ber.n,  6 
Bin.  99;  Willis  v.  Willis,  12  Pa.  St. 
159. 

South  Carolina. — Smith  r.  Bossard, 
2  :McCord  Eq.  400. 

Wisconsin. — Clark  r.  Randall.  9 
WMs.  135,  76  Am.  Dec.  252. 

17  Beverly  v.  Stephens,  17  Ala.  701. 

18  Millar  v.  Criswell,  3  Pa.  St.  449; 
Wilson  r.  Young,  9  Pa.  St.  101 ;  Bing- 
ham v.  Guthrie,  19  Pa.  St.  418;  Sar- 
geant V.  Clark,  108  Pa.  St.  588.  See 
also  Babb  V.  Stromberg,  14  Pa.  St. 
397;  Evars  V.  Kamphaus,  59  Pa.  St. 
379;  Williams  V.  Danziger,  91  Pa.  St. 


490 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


r§  2G7 


tration  is  a  private/^  or  a  mimicipal  corporation.^"  So,  a  federal 
district  attorney  has  authority,  in  a  proceeding  by  the  United 
States  to  condemn  land,  to  submit  to  an  arbitration.^  In  this 
country  the  general  doctrine  that  an  attorney  has  power  to  submit 
a  matter  in  dispute  to  arbitration  is  limited  to  a  pending  suit  which 
he  has  been  retained  to  manage;^  in  England,  however,  submis- 
sions made  by  attorneys  of  all  matters  in  difference  between  their 
clients  and  third  parties  have  been  upheld,^  even  where  the  client 
distinctly  directed  the  attorney  not  to  agree  to  such  submission.* 
The  authority  of  an  attorney  to  arbitrate  cannot  be  delegated  to 
another  without  the  client's  consent.^  So,  also,  his  authority  may 
be  restricted  by  express  negative  words. ^  In  some  states  an  attor- 
ney's agreement  to  arbitrate  a  cause  will  not  bind  the  client  unless 
he  consents  thereto.'''  In  Pennsylvania  an  attorney  cannot  submit 
matters  of  his  client  to  arbitration  when  it  would  endanger  the 
client's  title  to  real  estate ;  *  and  in  Massachusetts  a  party  is  en- 
titled, if  the  award  is  adverse,  to  a  jury  trial  upon  the  question  of 
the  attorney's  authority.^  But  if  a  party  makes  no  application  to 
strike  off  a  submission  entered  into  by  his  attorney,  the  presump- 
tion is  that  it  was  made  wath  his  consent ;  ^°  so,  a  client  will  be 
bound  by  the  submission  where  he  appears  before  the  arbitrators. 


19  Faviell  f.  Eastern  Counties  R. 
Co.,  2  Exch.  (Eng.)  344:  Alexandria 
Canal  Co.  r.  Swann,  5  How.  83,  12  U. 
S.    (L.  ed.)    60. 

20Connett  v.  Chicago,  114  111.  233, 
29  N.  E.  280;  Buckland  i:  Conway,  16 
Mass.  396;  Paret  v.  Bayonne,  39  N. 
J.  L.  559.  See  also  Everett  v. 
Cliarlestown,  12  Allen    (Mass.)   93. 

iJudson  i:  U.  S.,  120  Fed.  G37,  57 
C.  C.  A.  99. 

2  Scarlx)rough  r.  Reynolds,  12  Ala. 
252;  Jenkins  r.  Gillespie,  10  Smedes 
&  M.  (.Miss.)  31,  48  Am.  Dec.  7.32; 
Stinerville  &  B.  Stone  Co.  v.  White, 
25  .Misc.  314,  54  N.  Y.  S.  577;  Mark- 
ley  /•.  Amos,  8  Rich.  L.  (S.  C.)  468; 
McGinn  is  i:  Cnrry,  13  VV.  Va.  29. 

3  Dowse  v.  Coxe,  3  Ring.  20,  11  E. 
C.  L.   12. 


4  Smith  r.  Troup,  7  C.  B.  757,  G2  E. 
C.  L.  757;  Filmer  v.  Delber,  3  Taunt. 
(Eng.)  486.  See  also  Thomas  r. 
Hewes,  2  Cromp.  &  M.  (Eng.)  519; 
Faviell  v.  Eastern  Counties  R.  Co.. 
2  Exch.  (Eng.)  344;  Arnold  r. 
Poole,  4  M.  &  G.  860,  43  E.  C.  L.  444. 

5  Wright  r.  Evans,  53  Ala.  103.  As 
to  tlie  delegation  of  autliority  gen- 
erally, see  §  210. 

6  Haynes  v.  Wright,  4  Hayw. 
(Tenn.)    63. 

7  King  r.  King,  104  La.  420,  21)  So. 
205;  McGinnis  i:  Curry,  13  W.  Va. 
29. 

SNaglee  r.  Ingersoll.  7  Pa.  St.  185; 
Lew  r.  Nolan,  8  Pa.  Dist.  Ct.  531. 

9  Boyden  r.  Lamh,  152  Mass.  416, 
25  N.  E.  609. 

10  Millar  j;.  Criswell,  3  Pa.  St.  449. 


§  267] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


491 


without  objection,  and  takes  part  in  the  hcariiiii;^^  nor  will  a  party 
be  heard  to  complain  where  the  submission  was  clearly  for  his 
benefit. ^^  But  an  award  was  held  to  be  void  where  an  attorney 
agreed  to  submit  a  cause  to  arbitration,  without  his  client's  con- 
sent, on  condition  that  the  award  should  be  void  unless  approved 
by  the  client,  who  thereafter  dissented. ^^  So,  a  client  may  revoke 
a  submission  entered  into  by  his  attorney  before  it  is  acted  on,-^* 
or  he  may  apply  to  the  court  to  have  it  set  aside. ^^  In  submittiuG,- 
a  cause  to  arbitrators  or  to  a  referee  it  is  necessary  that  statutory 
and  court  rule  requirements  be  strictly  complied  with ;  ^®  usually 
the  submission  must  be  in  writing,^'  though  in  some  instances  an 
oral  submission  has  been  upheld. ^^  An  attorney  cannot  change  the 
terms  of  an  agreement  to  submit  which  has  been  entered  into  by 
his  client, ■^^  but  it  has  been  held  that  he  may  enter  into  an  agree- 
ment to  extend  the  time  for  makinc:  the  award. ^^ 


UDiedrick  r.  Richley,  2  Hill  (N. 
Y.)  271.  As  to  ratification  generally, 
see  §§  21]-214. 

12  A  party  who  was  absent  when 
his  case  was  called  for  trial  shall  not 
be  allowed  to  repudiate  the  act  of  his 
attorney  agreeing  in  open  court  to  a 
reference  to  arbitrators;  the  benefit 
of  the  delay  is  a  consideration  for  the 
submission  which  renders  it  irrevo- 
cable. Williams  r.  Tracey,  95  Pa.  St. 
308. 

13  Markley  i\  Amos,  2  Bailey  L. 
(S.  C.)    603. 

14  Wilson  r.  Young,  9  Pa.  St.  JOl; 
Coleman  v.  Grubb,  23  Pa.  St.  393. 

15  Millar  r.  Criswell,  3  Pa.  St.  449. 
^S  England. — ^litchell    i\   Harris,    2 

Ves.  Jr.  ]37. 

California. — Bates  v.  Visher,  2  Cal. 
355. 

Connecticut. — Daniels  v.  New  Lon- 
don, 58  Conn.  156,  19  Atl.  573,  7 
L.R.A.  503. 

Mississippi. — Jenkins  r.  Gillespie, 
10  Smedes  &  M.  31.  48  Am.  Dec.  732. 

Pennsylvania. — ^lillar    r.    Criswell, 


3  Pa.  St.  449;  Stokely  r.  Robinson, 
34  Pa.  St.  315;  Evars  c.  Kaniphaus. 
59   Pa.   St.  379. 

South  Carolina. — Markley  r.  Amos, 
8  Rich.  L.  468. 

17  German-American  Ins.  Co.  r. 
Buckstaff,  38  Xeb.  135,  56  N.  W.  092. 
See  also  Sutton  v.  Dickinson,  9 
Leigh   (Va.)   142. 

18  Everett  v.  Charlestown,  12  Al- 
len (Mass.)  93;  Faggard  v.  William- 
son, 4  Tex.  Civ.  App.  337,  23  S.  W. 
557. 

An  oral  agreement  made  in  open 
court  and  entered  at  the  time  by  the 
clerk,  has  been  held  to  constitute  a 
sufficient  submission.  Millar  r.  Cris- 
well, 3  Pa.  St.  449 ;  Stokely  r.  Robin- 
son, 34  Pa.  St.  315. 

19  Daniels  v.  New  London,  58  Conn. 
150,  19  Atl.  573,  7  L.R.A.  563;  Jen- 
kins r.  Gillespie,  10  Smedes  &  M. 
(Miss.)  31,  48  Am.  Dec.  732.  See 
also  Willis  v.  Willis,  12  Pa.  St.  159; 
Wilson  r.  United  Counties  of  Huron, 
etc..   11  U.  C.  C.  P.  548. 

20  Rex  r.  Hill.  7  Price  (Eng.)  636; 
Oakes  r.  Halifax.  4  (an.  S\!;>.  Ct.  (UO. 


492 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


r§  268 


Judgments  and  Decrees. 

§  268.  Confession  of  Judgment.  —  It  is  well  settled  that  an 
attorney  may  confess  judgment  for  his  client  ^  as  a  legitimate  in- 
cident of  his  professional  relation  to  the  canse,^  the  record  heing 
pritna  facie  evidence  that  he  was  duly  authorized  to  do  so.^  No 
special  authorization  is  required  ;  *  nor  is  it  necessary  to  tile  a  war- 
rant of  attorney  for  this  purpose.^     The  attorney's  authority  to 


1  United  States. — Denny  r.  Brown, 
7  Fed.  Cas.  No.  3,805 ;  Harniska  v. 
Dolph,  133  Fed.  158,  66  C.  C.  A.  224. 

Alabama. — Beverly  r.  Stephens,  17 
Ala.   701. 

Georgia. — Lyon  v.  Williams,  42 
Ga.  168;  Taylor  r.  American  Freehold 
Land  Mortg.  Co.,  106  Ga.  238,  32  S. 
E.  153.  See  also  Webster  v.  Dundee 
Mortg.,  etc.,  Co.,  93  Ga.  278,  20  S.  E. 
310. 

Illinois. — Wilson  r.  Spring,  64  111. 
18  dictum;  Chalmers  i\  Tandy,  111 
111.  App.  252;  Meriden  Hydro-Carbon 
Arc  Light  Co.  v.  Anderson,  111  111. 
App.  449.  Compare  People  v.  Lam- 
born,  1  Scam.  123 ;  Wadhams  V.  Gay, 
73111.  415. 

Indiana. — Hudson  r.  Allison,  54 
Ind.  215;  niompson  v.  Pershing,  86 
Ind.  303;  Devenbaugh  v.  Nifer,  3  Ind. 
App.  379,  29  N.  E.  923;  Wilkie  v. 
Pveynolds,  34  Ind.  App.  527,  72  N.  E. 
179. 

Kentucky. — Holbcrt  ?/.  Montgom- 
ery, 5  Dana  14;  Talbot  r.  McGee,  4 
T.  B.  Mon.  377;  Graves  v.  Long,  87 
Ky.  441,  9  S.  W.  297. 

New  York. — Denton  v.  Noyes,  6 
Johns.  296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237. 

North  Carolina. — Hairston  V.  Gar- 
wood, 123  N.  C.  345,  31  S.  E.  653. 

Pennsylvania. — King  v.  Cartee,  1 
Pa.  St.  147;   Cyphert  V.  McClune,  22 


Pa.  St.  195:  Flanigen  v.  Philadelphia, 
51   Pa.   St.   491. 

Tennessee. — Jones  v.  Williamson,  5 
Coldw.  371. 

Action  for  Statutory  Penalty. — ^A 
judgment  may  be  confessed  by  an  at- 
torney on  behalf  of  his  client  in  an 
action  of  debt  brought  for  the  pur- 
pose of  recovering  a  statutory  pen- 
alty. Chalmers  v.  Tandy,  111  111. 
App.   252. 

2  Lyon  V.  Williams,  42  Ga.  168. 

3  United  States. — Pacific  R.  Co.  v. 
Ketchum,  101  U.  S.  289,  25  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    932. 

Alabama. — Hill  v.  Lambert,  Minor 
91. 

Georgia. — Dobbins  v.  Dupree,  39 
Ga.  394. 

Illinois. — Wilson  v.  Spring,  64  111. 
14. 

Michigan. — Arnold  V.  Nye,  23  Mich. 
286. 

New  Jersey. — Gifford  r.  Tliorn,  9 
N.  J.  Eq.  702;  Ward  v.  Price,  25  N. 
J.  L.  225. 

Ohio. — Lowellville  Coal  Mining  Co. 
V.  Zappio,  80  Ohio  St.  458,  89  N.  E. 
97. 

Pennsylvania.  —  Cyphert  v.  Mc- 
Clune,  22   Pa.   St.   195. 

Tearos.— Mcrritt  V.  Clow,  2  Tex. 
582. 

4  Lyon   V.  Williams,   42  Ga.   168. 

6  Tanner  v.  Hopkins,  12  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)    238. 


§    268]  AUTHOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  493 

confess  judgment  will  be  presumed,^  even  though  there  has  been 
no  service  of  process/  or  though  it  subsequently  appears  that  the 
attorney  had  no  authority  to  make  the  confession,'  excepting  in 
vacation  time;  as  to  judgments  then  confessed  the  attorney's  au- 
thority should  affirmatively  appear.^  A  judgTnent  so  confessed  is 
binding  on  the  client  in  the  absence  of  fraud,  collusion,  surprise, 
or  some  ground  of  the  same  nature,^"  unless,  perhaps,  where  it  ap- 
pears that  the  attorney  is  insolvent.^^  The  authority  to  confess 
judgment  may  be  exercised  in  courts  not  of  record  as  well  as  in 
courts  of  record. ^^  It  has  been  held,  however,  that  the  presump- 
tion that  an  attornej'^  who  confesses  judgment  is  duly  authorized  so 
to  do,  may  be  rebutted, ^^  and  if  so  rebutted,  the  judgment  should 
be  set  aside.^*  An  injustice  to  the  client  will  not  be  permitted;  ^* 
thus  the  client  will  not  be  bound  where  his  attorney  confesses 
judgment  for  more  than  is  actually  due.^^  So,  a  power  authoriz- 
ing an  attorney  to  appear  in  court  and  confess  judgment  on  a  note, 
does  not  authorize  the  entry  of  such  appearance  before  the  ma- 
turity of  the  note,^'  or  a  confession  of  judgment  in  favor  of  an  in- 
dorsee.^* Nor  does  power  to  confess  judgment  confer  authority 
to  do  so  after  the  debt  has  been  barred  by  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions; ^^  nor,  in  such  case,  can  judgment  be  confessed  in  another 

6  Martin    r.   Judd,   60   111.    78.  client,  entered  by  himself,  was  with- 

7  Martin  v.  Judd,   60  111.   78;    Hoi-       out   authority.      Berg   r.   McLafferty, 
bert   V.   Montgomery,   5    Dana    (Ky.)        (Pa.)    12  Atl.  460. 

11;    Denton    v.   Noyes,    6    Johns.    (N,  14  Dobbins   v.   Dupree,    39    Ga.    394. 

Y.)   296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237.  See  also  Chicago  Bldg.  Soc.  v.  Haas, 

8  Denton    r.    Noyes,    6    Johns.     (N.       Ill  111.  176. 

Y.)   296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237.  15  Sherman  v.  Brenner,  1  VV.  N.  C. 

9  Martin  I'.  Judd,  60  111.  78.  (Pa.)     193. 

10  Meriden  Hydro-Carbon  Arc.  Light  16  Askew   v.  Goddard,   17   111.   App. 
Co.  V.  Anderson.  Ill   111.  App.  44:).  377;    Dilley  V.  Van  Wie,  6  Wis.   209. 

11  Meriden  Hydro-Carbon  Arc  Light  i'  Lewis   c.  Moon,  1  Ohio  Cir.  Dec. 
Co.   V.   Anderson,    111    111.   App.    449.  116,    1    Ohio   Cir.   Ct.    211. 

See   also   Holmes   v.   Rogers,   13    Cal.  18  Ream  v.  Merchants'  Nat.  Bank,  1 

191.  Ohio   Cir.   Dec.   351,   2   Ohio  Cir.   Ct. 

12  Chalmers  r.  Tandy,  111  111.  App.      43. 

252.  l9Walrod  r.  IManson,  23  Wis.  393, 

13  Dobbins  r.  Dupree,  39  Ga.  394.        99   Am.   Dec.   187;   Brown   r.   Parker, 
An    attorney    may    testify    that    a      28  Wis.  21;   Kahn  v.  Lesser,  97  Wis. 

confession    of    judgment    against    his      217,  72  N.  W.  739. 


494 


AUTHOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§269 


state  where  the  debt  is  barred  by  limitation  in  the  locus  contrac- 
tus}^ The  rule  has  no  application  in  criminal  cases. ^  In  some 
jurisdictions  an  attorney  cannot  confess  judgment  against  his 
client  unless  he  has  been  expressly  authorized  to  do  so,*^  but  it  is 
not  necessary  that  such  authority  should  be  in  writing.^ 

§  269.  Consenting  to  Entry  of  Judgment.  —  An  attorney 
may  also  consent  in  open  court  to  the  entry  of  judginent  against 
his  client  in  a  pending  cause  *  as  effectively  as  if  the  client  had 
personally  consented  thereto.*  It  is  immaterial  that  the  client 
may  have  a  good  defense  to  the  action,®  or  that  the  attorney  ex- 


2C  Brown   v.  Parker.    28   Wis.   21. 

1  An  attorney  lias  no  implied  power 
to  plead  guilty  in  the  absence  of  the 
defendant.  Ex  p.  Erickson,  31  N. 
Bruns.   29G. 

2  Ca/i/omia.— Pfister  v.  Wade.  69 
Cal.    133,    10    Pac.   369. 

/ok;«.— Bigler  v.  Toy,  68  la.  688, 
28  N.  \M.  17;  Ohlquest  v.  Farwell, 
71  la.  231,  32  N.  W.  277;  Martin  v. 
Capital  Ins.  Co.,  85  la.  643,  52  N-  W. 
534;  Rhutasel  v.  Rule,  97  la.  20,  65 
N.  W.  1013;  Kilmer  r.  Gallaher,  112 
la.  583,  84  N.  W.  697,  84  Am.  St. 
Rep.  358.  Compare  Potter  t".  Par- 
sons, 14  la.  286. 

Louisiana. — Durnford  r.  Clark,  3 
La.  199;  Girard  v.  Ilirsi'h,  6  La.  Ann. 
651;  Edwards  v.  Edwards,  29  La. 
Ann.  597.  Compare  Dockliam  /".  Pot- 
ter, 27   La.   Ann.   73. 

Canada. — McXamee  ;;.  O'Brien,  0 
X.  Bruns.  548;  Watt  v.  Clark,  12 
Ont.    ]'r.    359. 

3  Flanigen  r.  Pliiladclpliia.  .')1  Pa. 
St.  491.  See  also  Continental  iiuild- 
ing  &  Ijoan  Assoc,  v.  Woolf,  12  Cal. 
App.  725,  108  Pac.  729. 

i  U7iited       States.  —  llarniska       r. 

Dolpli,  133  Fed.  158,  66  C.  C.  A.  224. 

('(iliforiiia. — Security   Loan  &  Trust 


Co.  r.  Estudillo,  134  Cal.  166,  66 
Pac.  257. 

Georgia. — Webster  f.  Dundee  Mort- 
gage &  Trust  Co.,  93  Ga.  278,  20  S. 
E.  310;  Taylor  r.  American  Free- 
hold Land-Mortgage  Co.,  100  Ga. 
238,  32  S.  E.   153. 

Indiana. — Hudson  r.  Allison,  54  Ind. 
215;  Garrigan  r.  Dickey.  1  Ind.  App. 
421,  27  N.  E.  713:  Devenbaugb  v. 
Nifer,  3  Ind.  App.  379,  29  X.  E.  923. 

Louisiana. — Dangerfield  i".  Tlirus- 
ton,   8  Mart.   X".   S.  232. 

Maryland.  —  Farmers'  Bank  v. 
Sprigg,    11    Md.    389. 

Missouri. — Barlow  ;•.  Steel,  65  Mo. 
611. 

Xorth  Carolina. — llairston  r.  Gar- 
wood, 123  X.  C.  345,  31   S.  E.  053. 

Texas. — Dunman  r.  Hartwell.  9 
Tex.   495,   60  Am.   Dec.    176. 

5  Sterne  r.  Bentley,  3  How.  Pr.  (X. 
V.)    :\:U.    1   Code  Rep.   109. 

Counsel  for  a  married  icomnn  may 
a.uree  to  a  consent  verdict  even  tliougli 
the  case  is  one  in  which  her  rigiit 
of  homestead  is  in  issue.  \\  ebster 
r.  Dundee  ^Mortgage,  etc.,  Co.,  93 
Ga.  278,  20  S.  E.  310. 

6  Thompson  v.  Pershing.  S6  ind. 
303. 


§     1^70]  AUTJIOKITY    IN     CONDUCTIiNG    LITIGATIOX.  495 

eeeded  his  autliority ;  "^  the  client's  remedy  in  snch  cases  is  against 
his  attorney.*  Every  presumption  is  in  fa\'or  of  the  attorney's  au- 
thority and  the  validity  of  his  conduct,^  unless  the  contrary  should 
be  suggested  on  affidavit.^"  Where  an  attorney  in  open  court  vei-- 
bally  stipulates  that  an  order  or  judgment  may  be  entered,  and 
agreeably  thereto  the  order  or  judginent  is  entered,  a  statutorv 
provision  to  the  effect  that  ''an  attorney  shall  have  authority  to' 
bind  his  client  in  any  of  the  steps  of  an  action  by  his  agreement 
filed  with  the  clerk  or  entered  upon  the  minutes  of  the  court,  and 
not  otherwise,''  cannot  be  invoked  to  the  prejudice  of  the  oppos- 
ing party,  as  such  a  provision  refers  to  executory  agreements  only.^^ 
But  an  attorney  retained  by  one  of  two  joint  debtors,  both  of  whom 
have  been  served  with  process,  has  no  autliority  to  appear  for  both, 
and  consent  to  judginent  against  them.^^  Xor  can  an  attorney 
consent  to  the  entry  of  the  judgment  after  the  cause  has  been  dis- 
continued,^' or  dismissed.^*  So,  the  consent  of  an  attorney  to  the 
entry  of  a  judgment,  otherwise  void,  cannot  validate  it,  as,  for  in- 
stance, where  the  judge  was  disqualified,^^  or  where  the  judgment 
was  entered  contrary  to  a  statutory  provision ;  ^^  but  it  has  been 
held  that  an  attorney  may  agree  to  the  entry  of  a  judginent  after 
the  time  prescribed  by  statute.^''^ 

§  270.  Consenting  to  Entry  of  Decree.  —  Decrees  rendered 
fairly  and  honestly  with  the  consent  of  the  attorney  of  record  are 

'Taylor      v.      American      Freehold  13  Gilbert  v.  Vanderpool,  15  Jolins. 

Land  Mortg.  Co.,  lOG  Ga.  238,  82  S.        (N.   Y.)    242. 
ir_    ]53_  14  Hay   v.  Cole,   11   B.  Mon.    iKy.) 

8  Thompson    v.    Pershing,     86     Ind.       '-• 

.1  15  Converse 

SDockham    v.   Potter,   27    La.   Ann.        '^'-  ^'^    *^^- 


8  Thompson    v.    Pershing,     86     Ind.       '-• 
3Q.^  15  Converse   (;.  McArthur,   17   i'arb 


73. 

10  Dockham  v.  New  Orleans,  26  La 
Ann.  302;  Dockham  v.  Potter,  27  La 


16  Tiippery  r.  Hertung,  46  Mo.  13.i. 
Parti/  Constructively  Summoned. — 
An  attorney  appointed,  under  a  stat- 
ute, to  defend  a  l>arty  constructively 
Ann.  to.  summoned  cannot  consent  to  a  judg- 

11  Continental      Building     &     Loan       j„p„t  against  him.     Anderson   r.  Sut- 
Assoc.  V.  Woolf,  12  Cal.  App.  725,  108       ton.  2   Duv.    (Kv. )    480. 
Pac.   720.  17  Beardsley   v.   Pope,   88   ITun   560, 

l2Blodget    r.    Conklin,    9   How.   Pr.       34   N.  Y.   S.   846,   reversing    11    Misc. 
(N.   Y.)    442.  117,   32   X.   Y.   S.   926, 


■iOO 


AUTJIOEITV    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§   270 


as  obligatory  upon  the  client  ^^  as  if  they  were  entered  by  the  court 
after  a  contest. ^^  In  the  absence  of  fraiid,^°  the  consent  of  the  at- 
torney is,  in  law,  equivalent  to  the  consent  of  his  client,^  and  the 
adverse  party  is  entitled  to  assume  that  he  has  full  authority  to 
act  for  his  client  in  this  respect.^  A  stipulation  filed  by  an  attor- 
ney consenting  to  a  decree  against  his  client  is  part  of  the  record 
in  the  cause,  and,  therefore,  need  not  be  recited  or  mentioned  in 
the  decree.^    It  has  been  held,  however,  that  a  letter  authorizing  an 


18  United  States. — Farmers'  Trust, 
etc.,  Bank  v.  Ketchum,  4  McLean  120, 
8    Fed.   Cas.   No.   4,670. 

California. — Holmes  v.  Rogers,  13 
Cal.  191. 

Georgia. — Williams  r.  Simmons,  79 
Ga.  649,  7  S.  E.  133;  Hollenbeck  v. 
Glover,  128  Ga.  52,  57  S.  E.  108. 

Illinois. — Haas  v.  Chicago  Bldg. 
Soc,   80   111.   248. 

Kentuoky. — Graves  r.  Long,  87  Ky. 
441,  9  S.  W.  297. 

'Sew  York. — In  re  Maxwell,  66  Hun 
151.  21   N.  Y.   S.   209. 

Rhode  Island. — Wilson  v.  Wilson, 
25  R.  I.  446,  56  Atl.  773. 

Tennessee. — Jones  t'.  Williamson,  5 
Coldw.  371. 

West  Virginia. — Teter  r.  Irwin,  69 
W.  Va.  200,  Ann.  Cas.  1913A  707,  71 
S.  E.   115. 

19  Holmes  v.  Rogers,  13  Cal.  191. 
See  also  Pacific  R.  Co.  r.  Ketcluim, 
101   U.  S.  289,  25  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   932. 

20  Where  the  attorney  fraiiduiently 
and  corruptly  consents  to  a  decree 
witliout  the  knowledge  of  iiis  client, 
it  may  be  set  aside  in  an  oriLV-nal 
bill  for  fraud.  Chicago  Bidg.  Soc.  v. 
Haas.  Ill    III.  176. 

1  U'iiliains  /".  SiTuiiions.  79  Ga.  649, 
7  S.  E.  133;,  Hollenbeck  r.  Glover,  128 
Ga.  52,  57  S.  E.  108. 

.\  t litiiKii  ()f  Mnrrird  WdiiKtv. — 
CouiiHcl    of    record    rcjiresciitiiig    mar- 


ried women  in  pending  litigation  have 
as  ample  ]X)wer  to  bind  tlieir  clients 
in  conducting  and  disposing  of  such 
litigation  as  have  the  counsel  of  other 
suitors,  and  decrees  rendered  with 
consent  of  counsel,  without  fraud, 
are  obligatory  upon  such  clients.  Wil- 
liams V.  Simmons,  79  Ga.  655,  7  S. 
E.  133. 

Death  of  Attorney  Does  Not  Pre- 
vent Entry  of  Decree. — If  an  attorney 
agrees  to  the  terms  of  a  decree  of 
which  the  client  has  notice,  the  at- 
torney's death  will  not  prevent  the 
entry  of  the  decree ;  and  if  the  client 
wishes  further  representation,  he 
should  employ  other  counsel.  Ed- 
wards r.  Turner,  (Tenn.)  47  S.  W. 
144. 

Collateral  Attack. — Wlien  a  final 
decree  is  by  its  terms  founded  on 
consent,  if  the  alleged  consent  was 
wanting  for  lack  of  mental  concur- 
rence by  one  of  the  parties,  such 
party  is  not  at  liberty  to  gainsay 
the  record  and  raise  that  question 
collaterally.  Williams  r.  Simmons, 
79  Ga.  649,  7  S.  E.  133;  Hollenbeck 
V.  Glover.  128  Ga.  52,  57  S.  E.  108. 

2  Wilson  r.  Wilson,  25  R.  I.  446, 
5()  Atl.  773. 

3  Haas  r.  Chicago  Bldg.  Soc,  80 
ill.  248.  See  also  Schmidt  r.  Ore- 
gon Gold  Min.  Co.,  28  Ore.  26,  40  Pac. 
406,   1014,  52   Am.   St.   Rep.   759. 


§  271] 


AUTIIOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


497 


attorney  to  dismiss  a  case,  does  not  warrant  him  to  consent  to  a 
decree  which  destroys  his  client's  right  of  action.^  K'or  can  an 
attorney  consent  to  a  decree  in  a  cause  wherein  he  represents 
conflicting  interests.*  The  unauthorized  entry  of  a  decree  may,  of 
course,  be  ratified  Iw  the  client.^ 

§  271.  Assignment  of  Judgment.  —  It  is  well  settled  that  an 
attorney  at  law  has  no  implied  authority  to  assign,'  or  sell,^  his 
client's  judgment,  even  though  he  has  been  paid  the  full  amount 
thereof ;  ^  nor  does  authority  to  compromise  impart  authority  to 
assigTi.^"     The  fact  that  an  attorney  collects  the  interest  and  re- 


4  Jubilee  Placer  Co.  v.  Hossfeld,  20 
Mont.  234,  50  Pac.  73  6. 

See   also   sxtpra,   §    250. 

5  An  attorney  cannot  be  allowed  to 
consent,  on  behalf  of  infants,  to  a  de- 
cree, when  he  is  also  counsel  for  par- 
ties whose  interests  are  adverse  to 
such  infants.  Walker  r.  Grayson,  80 
Va.  337,   10  S.   E.  51. 

As  to  representing  conflicting  in- 
terests generally,  see  §§  174-182. 

STeter  v.  Irwin,  60  W.  Va.  200, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913A  707.  71  S.  E.  115. 

As  to  ratification  generally,  see 
§§   211-214. 

7  Alahama. — Boren  v.  ^NIcGehee,  6 
Port.  432,  31  Am.  Dec.  696;  Gardner 
r.  Mobile,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  102  Ala.  635, 
15    So.   271,   48   Am.   St.   Rep.   84. 

Indiana. — Caley  r.  Morgan,  114 
Ind.  350,  16  N.  E.  790. 

loica.—mtz  V.  Rea.  135  N.  W.  645. 

Kansas. — Mayer  v.  Sparks,  3  Kan. 
App.  602,  45   Pac.  249. 

Louisiana.  —  Walden  v.  Grant,  8 
Mart.   N.  S.   565. 

Maine. — Wilson  v.  Wadleigh,  36 
Me.   496. 

Maryland. — Peacock  v.  Pembroke,  8 
Md.   348. 

Mississippi.  —  Clark  v.  Kingsland, 
1  Smedes  &  M.  248;  Head  v.  Ger^ai3, 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 32. 


1  Walk.  431,  12  Am.  Dec.  577;  Rice 
V.  Troup,  62  Miss.   180. 

Missouri.— \NysLtt  v.  Fromme,  70 
Mo.    App.    614. 

Xebraska.- — ^Henry,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Hal- 
ter, 58  Neb.  685,  79  N.  W.  616. 

Pennsylvania. — Campbell's  Appeal, 
29  Pa.  St.  401,  72  Am.  Dec.  641  ;  Fas- 
sitt  r.  Middleton,  47  Pa.  St.  214.  86 
Am.  Dec.  535 ;  Rowland  v.  Slate,  58 
Pa.  St.  196;  Rosier  r.  Searight,  149 
Pa.  St.  241,  24  Atl.  303;  Ely  r.  Lamb, 
10  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  209. 

i<outh  Carolina. — Noonan  r.  Gray, 
1  Bailey  L.  437;  Mayer  v.  Blease,  4 
S.   C.   10. 

Tennessee.  —  Maxwell  v.  Owen,  7 
Cold.  630;  Baldwin  v.  Merrill,  8 
Humph.   132. 

8  Wyatt  r.  Fromme,  70  Mo.  App. 
613;  Henry  &  Coatsworth  Co.  r.  Hal- 
ter, 58  Neb.  685,  79  N.  W.  616;  Camp- 
bell's Appeal,  29  Pa.  St.  401,  72  Am. 
Dec.    641. 

As  to  the  disposition  of  the  client's 
choses  or  other  property  generally,  see 
supra,   §    203. 

9  Head  r.  Gervais,  Walk.  (Miss.) 
431,  12  Am.  Dec.  577;  Maxwell  v. 
Owen,   7   Cold.    (Tenn.)    630. 

10  Mayer   v.  Blease,  4   S.   C.   10. 


498 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.      [§§    272,  273 


mits  it  to  the  judgment  creditor,  does  not  show  such  an  agency  on 
the  part  of  the  attorney  as  will  validate  an  assignment  of  the  jndg- 
ment  hy  him.^^  An  attorney  may,  of  course,  be  authorized  by  his 
client  to  assign  or  sell  a  judgment,  and  such  authority  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  circumstances ;  ^^  so,  also,  an  unauthorized  sale  or 
assignment  may  be  ratified  by  the  client. ^^ 

§  272.  Vacating  Judgment.  — As  a  general  rule,  an  attorney, 
even  though  he  is  the  attorney  of  record,  is  not  authorized  to  vacate 
a  judgment  entered  in  favor  of  his  client;  ^*  nor  may  he  agree  to 
a  new  trial. ■^^  An  attorney  may,  however,  consent  to  the  opening 
of  a  judgment  by  default  so  that  a  cause  may  be  heard  on  its  mer- 
its.^^  So,  an  attorney  may  be  specially  authorized  to  agree  to  the 
vacation  of  a  judgment.^'  An  objection  that  a  judgment  has  been 
vacated  without  authority  is  not  available  to  third  parties ;  in  the 
absence  of  a  complaint  by  the  client  the  authority'  of  the  attorneys 
will  be  presumed.^* 

§  273.  Remittitur.  —  An  attorney  has  implied  authority  to 
enter  a  remittitur}^  so  that  the  judgTiient  may  agree  with  the 
amount  claimed  in  the  declaration,^"  or  represent  the  actual  in- 


11  Ely  r.  Lamb.  10  Ta.  Co.  Ct.  209. 

12  Painter  v.  Gibson,  88  la.  125,  55 
X.  W.  84:  Ely  v.  Lamb.  10  Pa.  Co. 
Ct.  209;  Schrocdcr  r.  Gillespie,  2  Pa. 
Dist.  Ct.  221. 

13  Gardner  r.  Mobile,  ete.,  Pv.  Co., 
102  Ala.  635,  15  So.  271,  48  Am.  St. 
Rep.  84;  Marshall  v.  Moore,  30  111. 
321  ;  Campbell's  Appeal,  20  Pa.  St. 
401,    72    Am.    Dee.    (541. 

As  to  ratification  j^cnerally,  see 
supra,    §§    211-214. 

14  Ilo]I)ert  V.  Montgomery,  5  Dana 
iKy.)  11;  Kent  r.  Ricards,  3  Md. 
Cli.  392;  Quinn  v.  Lloyd,  5  Abb.  Pr. 
X.   S.    (X.  Y.)    281. 

15  jjdlbiTt  '■.  MoiitgoMicry,  .")  Dana 
(  Ky. )     11. 

16  Latncli  r.  I»aslieraiitc,  1  Salk. 
(i'lng.)     HU;     ChiH8i»«i»    v.    Meikcl,    S 


Bosw.  (X.  Y.)  402;  Schelly  r.  Zink, 
13  Him  (X.  Y^)  538;  Read  r.  French, 
28  X.  Y.  285. 

17  Holbert  v.  Montgomery,  5  Dana 
(Ky.)    11. 

18  Hookey  v.  Greenstein,  119  App. 
Div.   209,   104   X.   Y.   S.   621. 

19  Lamb  r.  Williams,  1  Salk.  (Eng.) 
89,  6  Mod.  82;  Pickett  r.  Ford,  4 
How.    (Miss.)    24(i. 

Verbal  AiitJiorlti/  to  Enter  Ivrmit- 
titiir. — An  attorney  of  record  lor  a 
corporation  has  power  to  enter  a  re- 
mittitnr  where  verbally  authoiized 
so  to  do  by  the  president  of  tlie  cor- 
))()ratiun.  Case  r.  Hawkins.  53  Aliss. 
702. 

20  I'iekett  r.  Ford,  4  How.  (Miss.) 
246. 


§  274] 


AUTIIOKITV    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


499 


debtedness.^  An  attorney  may  also  agree  to  the  correction  of  an 
error,  even  though  such  correction  reduces  the  amount  of  a  verdict 
or  jiidginent.^  So,  the  judgment  creditor  may  agree  to  a  reduction 
of  the  judgment,  and.  in  such  case,  his  attorney  will  not  be  heard 
in  opposition,'  excepting,  of  course,  where  his  rights  are  affected. 

§  274.  Compromise  and  Release.  —  The  authority  of  an  at- 
torney to  compromise  or  release  the  substantial  rights  of  his  client 
has  been  considered  heretofore,*  and  the  i)rineiples  there  stated 
apply  with  equal  force  where  the  right  involved  is  a  judgment  in 
favor  of  the  client;  thus  the  attorney  has  no  implied  power  to  com- 
promise,* or  release  it,  unless  specially  authorized  by  his  client  to 
do  so.®  The  rights  of  innocent  third  persons  will,  however,  be  pro- 
tected.'^ 


iMead   c.  Buckner,  2  La.  286. 

2  Guay  V.  Andrews,  8  La.  Ann.  141 ; 
Hill  V.  Bowyer,  18  Giat.    (Va.)    364. 

3  Homans  v.  Tyng,  50  App.  Div. 
383,   67   N.   Y.   S.  792. 

4  See  supra,  §§  215-228. 

^  ArLansas. — Moore  v.  Cairo  &  Ful- 
ton R.  Co.,  36  Arlv.  262. 

California. — Trope  v.  Kerns,  83  Cal. 
553,  23  Pac.   691. 

Michigan.  —  Fetz  v.  Leyendecker, 
157  Mich.  355,  122  N.  W.  100,  16 
Detroit   Leg.   N.   408. 

Mississippi. — Rice  v.  Troup,  62 
Miss.  186. 

Missouri. — Schlemmer  v.  Sclilem- 
mer,  107  Mo.  App.  487,  81  S.  W.  630. 

Neiv  Jersey. — Faughnan  r.  Kliza- 
beth,  58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl.  212. 

New  York. — Lewis  v.  Woodruff,  15 
How.  Pr.  539. 

Pennsylvania. — ^Gable  v.  Hain,  1 
Pen.  &  W.  264;  Ely  v.  Lamb,  10  Pa. 
Co.  Ct.  209;  Maxfield  v.  Carr,  8 
Kulp  214. 

Tennessee. — Baldwin  v.  Merrill,  8 
Humph.  132;  Conley  v.  Whitfchorne, 
58  S.  W.  380. 


West  Virginia.— Hsirper  v.  Harvey, 
4  W.  Va.  539. 

6  Illinois. — Danziger  v.  Pittsfield 
Shoe  Co.,  204  111.  145,  68  X.  E.  534. 

Kansas. — Rounsaville  v.  Hazcn,  33 
Kan.   71,   5  Pac.   422. 

Kentucky. — Harrow  v.  Farrow.  7 
B.  Mon.  126,  45  Am.  Dec.  60. 

Maryland. — Horsey  v.  Chew,  65  Md. 
555,  5  Atl.  466.  See  also  Little  v. 
Edwards,   69   Md.  499,   16   Atl.  134. 

Missouri. — State  V.  Clifford,  124 
Mo.  492,  28  S.  W.  5,  8. 

Nehr-aska. — Smith  r.  Jones,  47  Neb. 
108,  66  N.  W.  19,  53  Am.  St.  Rep. 
519. 

New  Jersey. — Fauglinan  v.  Eliza- 
beth, 58  N.  J.  L.  309,  33  Atl.  212. 

New  York. — Kellogg  v.  Gilbert,  10 
Johns.  220,  6  Am.  Dec.  335. 

Fennsylrania. — Gray  v.  Howell,  205 
Pa.  St.  211,  54  Atl.  774.  See  also 
Lowry  v.  Clark,  20  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
357. 

7  "Where  the  rights  of  third  per- 
sons intervene,  the  question  of  estop- 
pel comes  in,  as  it  would  operate  a 
fraud    upon    an     innocent    purchaser 


500 


AUTHORITY    IN    C0NDUCT1>;G    LITIGATION. 


[§  275 


§  275.  Receiving  Payment  and  Entering  Satisfaction,  — 

The  attorney  of  record  may,  as  a  general  rnle,  receive  payment  of 
a  judgment  entered  in  favor  of  his  client,*  and  satisfy  the  same.' 
In  the  absence  of  notice  to  the  debtor  of  the  revocation  of  the  attor- 
ney's authority/"  payment  so  made  to  the  attorney  will  bind  the 


witlioiit  notice  to  allow  a  judgment 
\\liich.  when  he  purchased,  bore  upon 
its  face  the  evidence  that  it  was  sat- 
isfied, to  be  opened  and  used  as  a 
lien  upon  the  property  purchased, 
even  though  it  should  be  afterwards 
made  to  appear  that  the  satisfaction 
was  improperly  entered."  Wheeler 
r.  Alderman,  34  S.  C.  540,  13  S.  E. 
673,   27   Am.   St.  Rep.  842. 

8  United  States. — Erwin  v.  Blake,  8 
Pet.  18,  8  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    852. 

Alabama. — Frazier  r  Parks,  oQ 
Ala.    363. 

Arkansas. — Miller  r.  Scott,  21  Ark. 
396;  Conway  County  v.  Little  Rock 
&  Ft.  S.  R.  Co.,  39  Ark.  50. 

Colorado. — Black  i\  Drake,  2  Colo. 
330. 

Connecticut. — Brackett  v.  Norton, 
4  Coiiii.  517,  10  Am.  Dec.  179. 

Illinois. — Smyth  r.  Harvie,  31  111. 
62,  83  Am.  Dec.  202. 

Indiana. — Newman  r.  Kiser,  128 
Ind.   258,   26  N.  E.   1006. 

Iowa. — Harbach  r.  Colvin,  73  Iowa 
638,  35  N.   W.   0(i:{. 

Kentucky. — Cantcrbcrry  r.  Com.,  1 
Dana    416. 

Massachusetts. — Lewis    v.    Gamage, 

1  Pick.  347;  Langdon  r.  Potter,  13 
Mass.    320. 

Missouri. — Itliimliart  r.  Xrw  Mad- 
ri<l  iiaiiking  Co.,  !)'J  Mo.  App.  381, 
73  S.  W.  315. 

New  ./crsry. — Wyckoll'  /■.  I'crgcii,  I 
N.  .1.   L.  214. 

.\rir    )'()rk. — Steward  v.   Iliil'liceum, 

2  N.    V.    lOti. 


Pennsylvania. — Weist  v.  Lee.  3 
Yeates  47 ;  Bracken  r.  City,  27  Pittsb. 
Leg.   J.   202. 

South  Carolina. — Commissioners  of 
Public  Accounts  r.  Rose,  1  Desaua. 
461 ;  Mordecai  c.  Charleston  County, 
8  S.  C.  100;  Cauthen  v.  Cauthen,  76 
S.  C.  226,  56  S.  E.  978. 

Tennessee. — Maxwell  v.  Owen,  7 
Cold.    630. 

Texas. — Cartwright  t'.  Jones,  13 
Tex.   1. 

Virginia. — Branch  r.  Burnley,  1 
Call  147;  Wilson  r.  Stokes,  4  Munf. 
455. 

West  Virginia. — Yoakum  r.  Tilden, 
3  W.  Va.  167,  100  Am.  Dec.  738; 
Harper  r.  Harvey,  4  W.  Va.  539. 

9  United  States.— WiMs  r.  Chand- 
ler, 2  Fed.  273,  9  Rep.  808. 

Iowa. — McCarver  v.  Nealey,  1  G. 
Greene  360. 

New  Jersey. — Wyckoff  v.  Bergen,  1 
N.  J.  L.  214. 

Pennsylvania. — ^Miller  v.  Preston, 
154  Pa.  St.  63,  25  Atl.  1041. 

Soutli  Carolina. — Goldsmith's  Treas- 
urers r.  IMcDowell,  1  Hill  L.  184,  26 
Am.  Dec.  166;  Mayer  r.  Blease,  4 
S.  C.  10. 

WasJiington. — State  v.  Ballinger, 
4i  Wash.  23,  82  Pac.  1018,  3  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)  72;  Hayes  r.  Koepfii,  46  Wash. 
43,  S9   Pac.  151. 

Wisconsin. —  Maiidcrs  /•.  Sherman, 
IS    Wis.   575. 

10  Test  /■.  l.aisli.  ns  Ind.  301; 
Mitchell     c.    Pi(iua    Club    Assoc,     15 


§  275] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


501 


client,''^  notwithstanding'  any  private  arrangements  he  has  with 
his  attorney.^''  It  is  immaterial  that  the  payment  was  not  made 
by  the  judgment  debtor,^^  or  that  the  judgment  creditor  sued  in  the 
capacity  of  a  next  friend,^*  or  guardian  ad  litem  of  a  minor, ^*  or 
that,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  debtor,  the  judgiuent  had  been 
assigned  before  the  payment  was  made.^^  Xor  does  the  death  of 
one  of  the  members  of  a  firm  of  law^yers  revoke  the  authority  of 
the  survivor  to  receive  payment  of  a  judgment  wherein  the  part- 
nership represented  the  judgment  creditor,^'  The  satisfaction  of 
a  judgment  by  an  attorney  who  is  a  co-owner  thereof  binds  his  in- 
terest, and  satisfies  the  judgment  to  that  extent.^^  An  attorney's 
authority  being  revoked  by  his  client's  death, ^^  he  cannot  there- 
after satisfy  the  judgment  unless  authorized  to  do  so  by  the  client's 
representatives.^"  Kov  will  the  client  be  bound  by  a  satisfaction 
entered  in  fraud  of  his  rights  in  pursuance  of  an  arrangement  be- 
tween his  attorney  and  the  adverse  party. ^  Satisfaction  of  a  judg- 
ment cannot  be  entered  by  counsel  who  is  not  the  attorney  of  rec- 
ord therein. '^    And  one  who  pays  to  an  attorney  who  has  ceased  to 


Misc.  366.  37  N.  Y.  S.  406;  N.  Y. 
Code  Civ.   Pro.   §   ]260    (1). 

11  State  r.  Hawkins,  28  ]\Io.  366; 
Miller  v.  Preston.  ]54  Pa.  St.  63,  25 
Atl.  1041;  Yoakum  v.  Tilden.  3  W. 
Va.  167,  100  Am.  Dec.  738;  Harper 
f.  Harvey,  4  W.  Va.  539;  Flanders 
V.   Sherman,  18   Wis.  575. 

Long  after  the  attorney's  death,  a 
satisfaction  of  judgment  is  presumed 
to  have  been  authorized  by  his  client, 
and  will  not  be  stricken  oil  on  the 
ground  of  want  of  authority  to  make 
it.  Miller  v.  Preston,  154  Pa.  St.  63, 
25   Atl.   1041. 

12  State   V.   Hawkins,   28    Mo.    366. 
l3Frazier    v.    Parks,    56    Ala.    363. 
H  Baltimore   &   0.   R.   Co.    v.    Fitz- 

patrick,  36  Md.  619;  Stroyd  v.  Pitts- 
burg Traction  Co.,  15  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
245. 

15  State  r.  Ballinger,  41  Wash.  23, 
82   Pac.  1018,  3  L.R.A.(N.S.)    72. 


16  McCarver  v.  Nealey,  1  G.  Greene 
(la.)  360.  See  also  Hayes  v.  Koepfli, 
46  Wash.  43,  89   Pac.   151. 

i7McGill  V.  McGill,  2  Mete.  (Ky.) 
258. 

18  Roberts  v.  Nelson,  22  Mo.  App. 
28.  See  also  Beers  v.  Hendrickson, 
45    X.   Y.    665. 

19  See   supra,    §    140. 
2CTurnan  v.  Temke,  84  111.  286. 

1  Cage's  Case,  Style  (Eng.)  129; 
Hunter  v.  Wabash  R.  Co.,  149  Mo. 
App.  243,  130  S.  W.  103;  Chambers 
V.  Miller,  7  Watts  (Pa.)  63;  Brad- 
ford V.  Arnold,  33  Tex.  412;  Cljal- 
fants  V.  Martin,  25  W.  Va.  394. 

As  to  representing  conflicting  in- 
terests generally,  see  supra,  §§  174- 
182. 

2  Cameron  r.  Stratton,  14  111.  App. 
270;  Test  V.  Larsh,  98  Ind.  301;  Pea- 
cock V.  Pembroke,  8  Md.   348. 


502 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


1§  270 


represent  the  judgment  creditor  does  so  at  his  own  risk.^  Under 
the  JSTew  York  code  an  attorney's  authority  to  satisfy  is  limited  to 
two  years  after  the  entry  of  the  final  judgment  or  order  of  affirm- 
ance.* The  right  of  an  attorney  to  satisfy  a  judgment  which  he 
has  procured,  or  aided  in  procuring,  forms  an  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule,  heretofore  considered,  that  the  entry  of  final  judgment  is 
a  termination  of  the  professional  relation.^  It  has  been  held  that, 
upon  a  sufficient  showing,  the  court  may  restrain  an  attorney  from 
collecting  and  satisfying  a  judgment  on  behalf  of  his  client;  in 
such  case,  however,  the  attorney's  rights  with  respect  to  compensa- 
tion, or  lien  therefor,  will  be  preserved.^  As  in  the  case  of  other 
unauthorized  acts,  the  client  may  ratify  the  unauthorized  satisfac- 
tion of  judgment  by  his  attorney.' 

Enforce )ncnf  of  -J ud(iincn(s  and  Decrees. 

§  276.  Issuing  Execution  and  Receiving  Payment  there- 
on. —  As  a  general  rule,  an  attorney  employed  to  prosecute  a  suit 
is  authorized  to  do  every  act  necessary  to  its  final  determination,* 
and,  therefore,  he  may  issue  execution  on  his  clients'  judgments 
or  decrees,^  give  indemnity  which  is  necessary  to  secure  the  levy 


3  If  a  judgiiieiit  debtor  pays  an  at- 
torney the  amount  of  liis  claim  of 
lien  upon  tlie  judgment  without  the 
knowledp:?  and  consent  of  the  onner 
of  the  judgment,  and  knowing  tiiat 
the  attorney  no  longer  represents 
such  owner,  the  burden  is  upon  the 
judgment  debtor,  in  an  action  be- 
tween himself  and  the  owner  of  the 
judgment,  to  prove  the  validity  of 
the  lien  and  tliat  the  attorney  was 
entitled  to  tlie  money  so  paid  thereon. 
Hume  r.  Peterson,  91  Neb.  347,  13.") 
X.   \V.   101.-]. 

4  X.  V.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  1200  (1). 
See  al.HO  Chautauqua  County  Bank  r. 
Risley,   4    Denio    (\.  Y.)    480. 

6  See  supra,  §   142. 
6  0'X.-al    r.   Spalding,   «G   S.   W.   11, 
2.-5    Ky.    !-.    K.p.    1729. 


7Whitesell  r.  Peck,  1G5  Pa.  St. 
571,  30  Atl.  93:];  Wheeler  r.  Alder- 
man, 34  S.  C.  533,  13  S.  E.  673,  27 
Am.   St.   Rep.   842. 

As  to  ratification  generally,  see 
supra,    §§    211-214. 

8  Williams  V.  State,  G5  Ark.  159, 
40  S.  W.  186;  Smith  v.  Cunningham, 
59  Kan.  552,  53  Pac.  760;  Fowler  r. 
Iowa  Land  Co.,  18  S.  D.  131,  99  N. 
W.  1095. 

9  Enfjland. — Harrington  r.  Pinns,  3 
F.  &   F.  942. 

Ihuicd  States. — Union  Bank  v. 
deary.  5  Pet.  99,  8  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
60;  i<:rwin  r.  Blake,  8  Pet.  18,  8  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  852:  Wills  r.  Chandler, 
2   Fed.  273,   9   Rep.  808. 

A  rhnnsas. — Conway  County  r.  Lit- 
tle j!()(l<.  etc.,   n.  Co..  3!)  Ark.  50. 


276] 


AUTHORITY    IX    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


503 


thereof/"  receive  the  money  collected  thereon/^  and  enter  sat- 
isfaction thereof;  ^^  and  payment  so  made  will  bind  his  clienr 
and  discharge  the  officer  making  it,  in  the  absence  of  expre.ss  no- 
tice of  any  limitation  of  the  attorney's  anthority  in  this  respect. ^^ 


Connecticut. — Brackott  r.  Norton, 
4  Conn.  517,  10  Am.  Dec.  179;  Der- 
wort   r.   Loonier,  21   Conn.  2~i5. 

Maryland. — Farmers'  Bank  r.  Mac- 
kail,  3  Gill  447. 

Massachusetts. — Heard  r.  Lodge, 
20  Pick.  53,  32  Am.  Dec.  197;  Parker 
r.  Downing,  13  Mass.  465;  Shattuck 
V.  Bill,  142  Mass.  56,  7  N.  E.  39. 

Michigan. — Foster  r.  Wiley,  27 
Mich.  244,  15  Am.  Pvep.  185. 

Missouri. — Davis  v.  Hall,  90  Mo. 
659,  3  S.  W.  382;  Vaughn  v.  Fisher, 
32   Mo.  App.   29. 

New  York. — Cruikshank  v.  Good- 
win, 66  Hun  026  mem.,  20  N.  Y.  S. 
757;  Simpkins  r.  Page,  1  Code  Pvep. 
107;  Corning  r.  Southland,  3  Hill 
552 ;  Walters  r.  Sykes,  22  Wend.  566 ; 
Sliaunessy  '".  Traphagen,  13  N.  Y. 
St.   Rep.    754. 

PcnnsyJr-ania. — McDonald  v.  Todd, 
1    Grant   Cas.   17. 

South  Carolina. — Poole  r.  Gist,  4 
McCord  L.  259;  Hyams  v.  Michel,  3 
Rich.   L.   303. 

10  Audley  v.  Townsend,  49  Misc.  23, 
96  N.  Y.  S.  439.  (Construing  law 
of  Wisconsin.) 

11  Arkansas. — Williams  v.  State,  65 
Ark.  159,  46  S.  W.  186. 

Georgia.— See  Lane  r.  Brinson,  78 
S.  E.   725. 

Maine. — Gray  v.  W'ass,  1  Greenl. 
257:   White  r.  Johnson,  67  Me.  287. 

Mississippi.— Jiutler  r.  Jones,  7 
How.   587,  40  Am.   Dec.  82. 

Missouri. — Milliken  r.  INIcBroom, 
38  Mo.  342. 

Pennsylvania. — Pearson  v.  Morri- 
son, 2   Serg.  &  R.  20. 


South  Carolina. — Mayer  r.  Blcase, 
4  S.  C.   10. 

yirginia. — Wilson  /".  Stokes,  4 
Munf.  455. 

An  attorney  has  authority  to  re- 
ceive seisin  for  the  creditor  on  a  levy 
of  an  execution  on  the  debtor's  land. 
Pratt  r.  Putnam,   13  Mass.   361. 

i2Erwin  r.  Blake,  8  Pet.  25,  8  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  854;  Taylor  v.  Easterling, 
1    Rich.  L.    (S.  C.)    310. 

13  Williams  v.  State,  65  Ark.  159, 
46  S.  W.  186;  Butler  r.  Jones,  7  How. 
(Miss.)  587,  40  Am.  Dec.  82.  See 
also  Henderson's  Appeal.  4  Penny. 
(Pa.)    229. 

Fund  Belonging  tc  Several  Persons. 
— In  Donahue  v.  Frackler,  21  W.  Va. 
124,  as  to  the  right  to  pay  over  a 
fund  in  partition  proceedings,  it  was 
said:  "The  attorneys  would  un- 
doubtedly have  had  authority  to  re- 
ceive the  portions  ascertained  to  be 
due  their  clients  from  the  commis- 
sioners of  the  court;  but  until  there 
had  been  an  order  made  ascertaining 
the  portion  or  sum  due  their  clients, 
neither  they  nor  the  clients  them- 
selves by  receiving  the  money  from 
the  purchaser  could  have  discharged 
the  debtor.  In  this  case  the  portion 
coming  to  the  several  owners  of  the 
land  liad  not  been  ascertained.  The 
fund  belonged  to  them  all  jointly,  in 
different  proportions,  and  no  one  of 
tliem  had  a  right  to  any  particular 
part  in  severalty.  If.  therefore,  the 
parties  had  no  right  to  demand  or 
receive  payment,  a.  fortiori,  their 
counsel   could   have   no   such   power." 


504  AUTHORITY    iN    CONDUCTIXG    LITIGATION.  [§    277 

An  attorney,  though  authorized,  is  not  bound,  to  receive  money  col- 
lected for  his  client  on  execution.^*  And  if  nione^'  is  paid  him  by 
the  sheriff  without  direction  as  to  its  application  he  is  not  bound 
to  consider  it  as  j^aid  on  account  of  the  sum  collected  on  execu- 
tion.^^ An  attorney  other  than  the  attorney  of  record  in  the  origi- 
nal suit  may  be  employed  to  sue  out  an  execution  without  formal 
substitution/^  and,  unless  it  is  demanded  of  him,  one  so  employed 
may  proceed  without  producing  his  authority  so  to  act.^'  So,  an 
attorney  may  demand  j)ayment  for  his  client  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
execution.'^*  But  an  attorney,  by  virtue  of  this  general  authority, 
cannot  authorize  an  execution  to  issue  against  the  property  of  his 
client  while  a  proper  supersedeas  bond  is  on  tile  to  provide  for  an 
appeal.^^  ]^or  does  an  attorney's  authority  to  receive  payment  give 
him  the  right  to  move  against  the  sheriff,  in  his  own  name,  to  re- 
quire the  payment  to  him  of  money  collected  on  the  execution ;  and 
the  fact  that  the  attorney  has  a  claim  against  his  client  for  a  larger 
sum  than  that  held  by  the  sheriff  will  not  alter  the  rule.^°  ^or  can 
the  attorney  delegate  to  another  his  authority  to  receive  payment.^ 
But  where  the  attornej- 's  fees  have  been  paid,  a  direction  by  him  to 
the  sheriff  not  to  pay  over  the  money  collected  on  the  execution 
cannot  prevail  against  a  demand  for  such  money  by  the  execution 
plaintiff.^ 

§  277.  Other  Measures  for  Enforcement. —  The  authority 
of  an  attorney  to  enforce  and  collect  a  judgment  is  not  confined  to 
the  mere  issuance  of  an  ordinary  execution  for  that  purpose,  but 
it  extends  to  all  other  lawful  means  for  its  preservation  and  en- 
forcement.'   Thus  an  attorney  may  act  for  his  client  in  protecting 

HPoolf    V.   Cist,  4    McCord   L.    (S.  19  State    Bank    r.    Green,     8     Neb. 

C.)    25!t.  297.   1    N.  W.  210. 

15  I'licc  r.   Dearborn.  ;i4  N.    II.  481.  20  Harney      r.      Denioss,      .'?      How. 

16  West  Cove  Grain   Co.   r.  Hartley,  (.Miss.)    174. 

10.',    .Vie.    293.   74    .Xtl.   7.S0:    'I'liorp    v.  1  Hendry    r.    Henlisa,    37    Fla.    609, 

Fowler,  o   Cow.    (X.    \'. )    440.  20   So.  SOO,   34    L.R.A.   283. 

17  Chapman  /'.  Clievis.  !l  l,(  igh  As  to  delegation  of  aiitliority  f?en- 
(Va.)    297.  erally,  see  mipra.  §  210. 

18  Steward  r.  IJiddleeiiin,  2  N.  Y.  2  Dunn  r.  Newman.  7  How.  (Miss.) 
10.3;  Cliafiman  v.  CiieviH,  9  Leigh  r>82.  See  also  Goodrich  /■.  Mott.  9 
(\a.)     297.  Vt.   39.'). 

8  Smith     r.     Cunniii'riiain,   59    Kan. 


§     278]  AUTIIOKITY    IX    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


505 


the  judgniciit  again.st  i)roeoc(lings  to  avoid  it.'*  So,  he  may  insti- 
tute siipi^leinentary  proceedings,*  and  conq)el  the  debtor  to  appear 
and  make  disclosure.®  The  attorney  of  record  may  also,  by  virtue 
of  his  general  retainer,  institute  proceedings  under  the  fraudulent 
debtor's  act,'  or  issue  an  alias  execution,^  or  sue  out  an  execution 
whereon  the  defendant  may  be  arrested  and  confined  in  jail,^  or 
apply  for  a  writ  of  seizure  and  sale,^°  or  move  for  an  order  for  the 
sale  of  attached  property,^^  or  apply  for  the  appointment  of  a  re- 
ceiver/^ or  present  a  petition  in  winding-up  proceedings  for  the 
allowance  of  the  judgment  out  of  the  assets  of  a  corporation,^^  or 
indemnify  the  sheriff,  for  his  clients,  in  order  to  induce  him  to 
levy.^*  And  may  sue  for  revival  of  the  judgment,  particularly 
where  he  has  an  interest  therein.^**  But  an  attorney  employed  to 
procure  judgment  cannot,  by  virtue  of  his  general  authority,  bring 
a  suit  on  the  judgiuent  in  another  state,  or  employ  another  attor- 
ney to  do  so.^®  The  right  of  an  attorney  to  purchase  at  judicial  or 
other  public  sales  has  been  considered  heretofore.^' 

§  278.  Instructions  as  to  Enforcement.  —  The  attorney  who 
causes  an  execution  to  be  issued  may  direct  the  sheriff,  or  other 


552,    53    Pac.    760     (foreclosure    pro- 
ceedings) . 

Appointing  Appraisers. — An  attor- 
ney has  not  power  to  appoint  an  ap- 
praiser on  execution,  without  special 
authority.      Dodge    r.    Prince,    4    Vt. 

im. 

4  Sheldon  v.  Risedorph,  23  Minn. 
518. 

Compare  Cullison  v.  Lindsay,  108 
Ta.  124,  78  N.  w,  847,  wherein  it 
was  held  that  an  attorney  is  not  au- 
thorized, on  his  own  motion,  to  com- 
mence affirmative  proceedings  to  keep 
alive  a  judgment  which  he  has  for 
collection. 

5  Ward  r.  Roy,  69  N.  Y.  96;  Shau- 
nessy  v.  Traphagen,  13  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
754. 

6  West  Cove  Grain  Co.  v.  Bartley, 
105    Me.    293,    74    Atl.    730. 


7  Steward  v.  Biddlccum,  2  X.  Y. 
103. 

8  Cheever  v.  Mirrick,   2  X.  H.  370. 
SHyams  v.  Michel,   3   Rich.   L.    (S. 

C.)    303. 

lORowlett  v.  Shepherd,  7  Mart.  N. 
S.  (La.)  515;  Simpson  V.  Lombas,  14 
La.    Ann.    103. 

11  Vaughn  v.  Fisher,  32  Mo.  App. 
29. 

12  Ward  r.  Roy,  69  N.  Y.  96. 
i3Xelson    r.   Jenks.   51    :\Iinn.    108, 

52  X.  W.   1081. 

l*Audley  v.  Townsend,  49  T^Iisc. 
23,  96  X.  Y.  S.  439. 

As  to  the  right  of  attorney  to  exe- 
cute bonds  for  his  client  generally, 
see  supra,  §  201. 

15  Martir.ez  r.  Vives,  32  La.  Ann. 
505. 

16  Franklin  r.  Warden,  9  Minn.  124. 

17  See  supra,   §   166. 


i06 


AUTIiOraTY    IJf    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  278 


officer  in  whose  hands  it  is  placed,  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of 
service,  and  such  directions  will  bind  the  client,"  even  though  they 
are  contrary  to  his  instructions  to  the  attorney.^®  But,  while  tlie 
attorney  may  order  a  departure  from  the  usual  mode  of  procedure 
in  such  cases,^°  or  limit  the  officer  to  any  act  which  is  within  his 
general  authority  under  the  writ,^  he  cannot  authorize  an  abuse  of 
process,  or  enlarge  the  officer's  powers;^  thus  he  has  no  implied 
authority  to  direct  a  levy  upon  the  property  of  third  persons.^ 
Within  this  limitation  an  officer  who  follows  the  directions  of  the 
execution  creditor's  attorney  will  be  protected,*  even  though  the  at- 
torney may  have  acted  indiscreetly,  negligently,  or  ignorantly,  or 
may  have  so  abused  his  trust  as  to  be  answerable  to  his  client  in 
damages.*  Thus  where  the  attorney  writes  a  defective  return, 
which  the  officer  signs,  the  mistake  is  that  of  the  client.^    In  some 


18  United  States. — Rogers  v.  The 
Marshal,  1  Wall.  644,  17  U.  S.  (L. 
ed.)  714;  Erwin  r.  Blake,  8  Pet.  18, 
8  U.   S.    (L.  ed.)    852. 

Alabama. — Smith  r.  Gayle,  58  Ala. 
600. 

Indiana. — State  r.  Boyd,  63  Ind. 
428. 

Xeia  York. — Gorham  v.  Gale,  7 
Cow.  73!),  J  7  Am.  Dee.  549;  Corning 
r.  Southland,  3  Hill  552. 

Pennsylvania. — Lynch  r.  Com.,  16 
Serg.  &  R.  368,  16  Am.  Doc.  582. 

Vermont. — Kimball  v.  Perry,  15 
Vt.  414;  Willard  V.  Goodrich.  31  Vt. 
597. 

19  Russell  V.  Geyer,  4   Mo.   384. 
20McClure  v.  Colclough,  5  Ala.  65; 

State   r.   Boyd,  63  Ind.  428. 

1  Godfrey  r.  Gibbons,  22  Wend.  (N. 
V.)    5i;!>. 

2  Walters  r.  Sykes.  22  W.mkI.  (X. 
V.i    5(i(;. 

3  F.iic<-  r.  iMwtor,  42  Neb.  8 IS.  (iO 
.V.   W.    1027. 

An  attorney  li;i-^  uu  iiiiplicd  autbor- 
it_\    *>  diiect  that  ail  (  xeciitiiii,  vvliich 


he  has  obtained  in  favor  of  his  client, 
be  levied  upon  property  belonging  to 
a  third  person.  Parker  r.  Home  Mut. 
Building  &  Loan  Assoc.,  114  Ga.  702, 
40  S.  E.  724.  See  also  Donahue  v. 
Frackler,   21  W.  Va.   124. 

If,  therefore,  an  ofilcer  to  whom  a 
warrant  is  issued  directing  him  to 
seize  the  goods  of  A,  takes  the  goods 
of  B,  an  authority  so  to  do  from 
the  principal  in  the  proceedings  will 
not  be  implied,  and  without  other 
evidence  he  cannot  be  made  liable  by 
t!ie  presence  of  his  attorney  at  the 
time  of  the  seizure,  or  by  the  direc- 
tions of  said  attorney  to  the  olhcer. 
Welsh  r.  Cochran,  63  N.  Y.  181,  20 
Am.  Kep.  519.  See  also  Fisher  r. 
iletlierington,  11  Misc.  575,  32  X.  Y. 
S.  705. 

4  McClure  v.  Colough,  5  Ala.  65; 
White  V.  Johnson,  67  Me.  287;  How- 
ani  /■.  U'liittemore,  9  N.  II.  133. 

S.Ienney  V.  Delesdernier,  20  ]\le. 
183. 

6  Stevens  V.  Colby,  46  N.  H.  163. 


§    279]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  507 

states,  however,  the  courts  adhere  to  the  rule,  heretofore  discussed, 
to  the  effect  that  the  rendition  of  final  judgment  puts  an  end  to  the 
attorney's  authority/  and,  therefore,  that  he  cannot,  by  directing- 
the  manner  of  sale  upon  execution,  waive  any  of  his  client's  sub- 
stantial rights.* 

§  279.  Agreements  in  Connection  with  Enforcement.  — 

It  has  been  held  that  an  attorney,  authorized  to  enforce  a  judg- 
ment, is  impliedly  clothed  with  authority  to  take  all  necessary 
steps  and  make  all  necessary  contracts  to  accomplish  such  enforce- 
ment for  the  best  interests  of  his  client.^  Thus  counsel  may  agree 
that  if  a  foreclosure  sale  is  effected  pending  an  appeal  from  the 
foreclosure  decree,  the  proceeds  shall  be  held  in  court,  subject  to  be 
disposed  of  pursuant  to  the  decision  and  mandate  of  the  appellate 
court, ^°  or  that  attached  property  of  a  perishable  nature  may  be 
sold  and  the  proceeds  thereof  paid  into  court,^^  or  that  a  commis- 
sioner's report  of  a  sale  of  trust  property  may  be  confirmed, ^^  or  to 
withdraw  an  appeal  in  consideration  of  the  suspension,  by  the  oth- 
er party,  of  a  decreed  sale.^^  Where  an  attorney  in  an  action  on  a 
promissory  note  against  the  administratrix  of  an  indorser,  agreed 
with  her  that,  if  she  would  confess  judgment,  he  would  immedi- 
ately take  out  execution,  and  collect  the  judgment  from  the  maker 
of  the  note,  who,  he  assured  her,  was  then  of  sufiicient  property, 
it  was  held  that  such  agreement  was  within  the  scope  of  the  gen- 
eral authority  of  the  attorney,  and  binding  on  his  client.^*  But 
an  attorney  employed  to  defend  a  suit  is  not  thereby  clothed  with 
any  implied  power  of  disposition  over  his  client's  property,  wheth- 
er in  satisfaction  of  the  judgnnent,  or  in  payment  of  the  expenses 
of  the  suit,  or  for  any  other  purpose ;  nor  is  he  held  out  to  the  ad- 
verse party  as  clothed  with  any  such  power;  and  it  can  make  no 
dift'erence  whether  the  property  disposed  of  is  the  sid)ject-matter 

7  See  supra,  §  142.  also  Rice  v.  O'Keefe.  6  Heisk.  (Tenn.) 

8  Person   v.  Leathers,  67  Miss.  548,       638. 

7  So.  391.  12  Story  r.  Hawkins,  8  Dana  (Ky.) 

9  Fowler  i:  Iowa  Land  Co.,  18  S.  D.       12. 

131,  99  N.  W.  1095.  13  Ward  r.  Hollins.  14  Md.  158. 

10  Halliday  v.  Stuart,  151  L^  S.  229,  i*  Union  Bank  r.  Geary,  5  Pet.  98,  8 
14  S.  Ct.  302,  38  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    141.  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   60. 

11  Nelson  r.  Cook,  19  111.  440.     See 


508  AUTJIOKITY    IN    COXDUCTING    LITIGATI 3N.  [§    280 

of  the  litigation,  or  iiot.^*  Xor  has  an  attorney  any  implied  au- 
thority to  bind  his  client  by  an  agreement  that  the  purchaser  at  a 
judicial  sale  shall  pay  the  amount  of  his  bid  to  a  third  person  in- 
stead of  to  the  officer  making  the  sale.^^  The  general  right  of  an 
attorney  to  make  or  alter  contracts  on  behalf  of  his  client  has  been 
considered  heretofore.^' 

§  280.  Staying  Execution.  —  The  implied  power  of  an  attor- 
ney to  stay  an  execution,  issued  in  favor  of  his  client,  is  recognized 
in  several  jurisdictions.'^*  This  is  in  accordance  with  the  general 
practice  of  attorneys,  and  they  ought  not  to  be  held  responsible  ex- 
cept for  fraud  or  gross  negligence,  or  proof  that  their  clients  have 
suffered  a  loss  by  the  indulgence  granted.''^  Thus  it  has  been  held 
that  it  is  within  the  power  of  an  attorney  to  stay  execution  in  con- 
sideration of  the  promise  of  a  third  person  to  pay  the  debt,^"  or  to 
agree  on  behalf  of  his  client  (the  plaintiff)  that  if  the  defendant 
will  submit  to  a  default,  no  execution  shall  issue  for  the  period  of 
one  week,  or,  if  issued,  that  it  shall  not  be  served  within  that 
time.^  So,  where  an  execution  has  been  issued  on  a  judgment 
which  was  fraudulently  entered,  the  plaintiff's  attorney  has  author- 
ity to  agree  that  it  shall  be  postponed  to  a  subsequent  execution.^ 
It  is  advisable,  of  course,  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  client  when 
this  can  be  done,  or,  if  obliged  to  act  hurriedly,  to  inform  him  of 

15  National    Bank    of   Comniorco    r.  16  Pliiladolpliia  Fire  Assoc,  v.  Ruby, 

Howman,   ]00   S.   W.   831,   30   Ky.   L.  58  Ni-b.  730,  79  N.  W.  723. 

Rep.     ]23f):     KionscIinal)le    r.     Knob-  l' See  supra,   §   202. 

laiU'li,  21  Minn.  50.  18  Albertson     r.    (Joldsby,     28     Ala. 

As  to  tlie  disposition  of  the  client's  711,     05     Am.     Dec.     380;      t'line     r. 

proj)erty  generally,  see  supra,   §   203.  \Vri<>htson,    7    Ky.   L.    Rep.   230    (ab- 

Compare   Reamer's   Appeal,   18   Pa.  stract)  ;    Kent  V.  Ricards,  3  Md.  C'ii. 

St.    510,    wherein    it    was    lield    that  3!»2 ;  Silvis  i'.  Ely,  3  Watts  &  S.  ( Pa.) 

counsel   for   execution    creditors    liave  420;   Lynch  v.  Com.,  10  S.  &  R.   (Pa.) 

authority    to    agree    with    tlic    slierilT  3(iS.  Ki  Am.  Dec.  582. 

that    certain    persons    may    lake    pos-  19  Mi]lau<ion  r.   McMicken,   7    -Mart, 

session    of    tlie    goods    levied    on,    and  X.  S.    (I.a.)    34. 

s<dl  the  same,  adjourning  from  day  to  20  Silvis  r.  Ely,  3  Watts  &  S.   (Pa.) 

(lay.    and    fliat    as    to    such    goods,    the  420. 

shcriir   sliall    h.!    responsiidc    only    for  1  Wiidand   r.  Wiiite,    10!)  Mass.  392. 

tiie   proceeds  received  from  such   per-  2  Road  v.  French,  28  N.  Y.  285. 
sons. 


281] 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDLX'TlxNG    LITICIATION. 


i09 


the  stay  at  the  earliest  opportunity.^  In  some  states,  however,  it 
has  been  held  that  an  exceution  cannot  be  stayed  by  the  attorney 
unless  he  has  been  so  authorized  by  the  execution  creditor,*  and 
that  special  authority  to  do  so  will  not  be  presumed  from  a  return 
by  the  officer  that  the  execution  was  suspended  by  the  attorney.* 

Proceedings  for  Review. 

§  281.  Authority    to    Prosecute    Appeal    and    Error. — 

In  accordance  with  the  view,  heretofore  considered,  that  the  au- 
thority of  the  attorney  of  record  ends  with  the  entry  of  final  judg- 
ment,^ it  has  been  quite  generally  held  that  he  cannot,  merely  by 
virtue  of  his  original  retainer,  prosecute  an  appeal  or  writ  of  er- 
ror in  the  name  of  his  former  client ;  '  nor  will  such  procedure  be 


3  In  Silvis  V.  Ely,  3  Watts  &  S. 
(Pa.)  420,  it  was  said:  "An  attor- 
ney has  power  to  stay  proceedings, 
either  before  suit  or  after  judgment, 
luiless  restrained  by  special  instruc- 
tions. An  agreement  to  stay  the  pro- 
ceedings would  be  a  consideration  for 
a  promise  by  a  third  person,  and  the 
principal  would  be  bound  by  such  a 
contract,  if  entered  into  in  good  faith. 
And  who  can  doubt  that  such  an 
agreement  would  bind  the  principal, 
if  he  did  not  express  his  dissent  in  a 
reasonable  time.  Although  he  was 
not  informed  of  the  agreement  in  the 
case  at  bar,  and  of  course  neither  as- 
sented nor  dissented,  yet  by  com- 
mencing the  suit  he  ratifies  the  act 
of  the  attorney,  and,  as  between 
them,  he  is  bound,  unless  the  attorney 
acted  in  bad  faith.  In  this  extended 
country,  knit  together  by  commercial 
ties  and  constant  intercourse,  and 
where  large  debts  are  constantly  con- 
tracting and  owing  by  one  section  to 
another,  we  must  beware  of  setting 
too    limited   bounds    to    the    salutary 


discretion  of  attorneys.  It  is  in  the 
power  of  the  principal  to  limit  the 
authority  of  the  attorney,  as  between 
themselves,  without  difficulty ;  and  we 
may  safely  trust  to  their  vigilance  in 
seeking  out  those  who  are  most  fit, 
from  their  knowledge  and  honesty,  to 
be  intrusted  with  the  transaction  of 
business.  The  delay  of  a  day  may 
sometimes  be  fatal  to  the  claim;  and 
as  the  client  most  frequently  lives  at 
a  distance,  it  may  be  impossible  in 
time  to  communicate  with  liim.  It 
is  most  prudent,  when  it  can  be  done, 
to  avoid  taking  any  step  out  of  the 
usual  course  of  business,  witliout  the 
assent  of  the  principal;  but  this  is  a 
matter  of  sound  discretion,  with 
which  third  persons  have  little,  if 
anything,  to  do." 

4  Reynolds  v.  Ingersoll,  11  Smedes  & 
M.  (Miss.)  249,  49  Am.  Dec.  .57; 
Pendexter  v.  Vernon,  9  Humpli. 
(Tenn.)    84. 

5  Reynolds  v.  Ingersoll,  11  Smedes 
&  M.   (Miss.)   249,  49  Am.  Dec.  57. 

6  See  supra,  §  142. 

7  Colorado. — Tobies    v.    Nevitt,    45 


510 


ALTJIOKITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§    :>81 


warranted,  as  against  the  client's  objection,  by  the  fact  that  the  at- 
torney has  a  disputed  agreement  with  his  client,  which,  if  estab- 
lished, would  entitle  him  to  share  in  the  recovery.^  But  in  several 
states  the  implied  authority  of  an  attorney  to  prosecute  an  appeal 
or  writ  of  error  is  recognized.®  So,  also,  an  exception  to  the  gen- 
eral rule  exists  in  favor  of  municipal  solicitors  elected  by  the  peo- 
ple to  conduct  litigation  for  them ;  such  attorneys  may  not  only  ap- 
peal on  behalf  of  their  clients,  but  it  is  highly  proper  that  they  do 
so  should  they  deem  it  advisable.^"  Under  the  Louisiana  statute, 
the  duties  of  an  attorney  ad  hoc  for  an  absentee  do  not  terminate 
with  the  conclusion  of  the  suit  in  the  lower  court,  and  it  is  incum- 
bent upon  him  to  appeal,  if,  in  his  opinion,  his  client  can  be  bene- 
fited thereby.^^  Where  proceedings  for  review  have  been  taken  by 
an  attorney,  his  authority  so  to  proceed  will  be  presumed  in  the  ab- 
sence of  an  objection  by  his  client,^^  excepting  where  such  client  is 


Colo.  231,  16  Ann.  Cas.  925,  100  Pac. 
416,  132  Am.  St.  Rep.  142,  23  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)   702. 

Illinois.— Covin  v.  Phy.   24  111.  37. 

loica. — Hopkins  v.  Mallard,  1  G. 
Greene  117. 

Kentucky. — Hej'  r.  Simon,  93  S.  W. 
50,  29  Ky.  L.  Eep.  315. 

Louisiana. — Ikerd  v.  Borland,  35 
La.  Ann.  337;  Gibson  v.  Hitchcock,  35 
La.  Ann.  1201. 

Maryland. — National  Park  Bank  v. 
Lanahan,  60  Md.  477. 

New  Jersey. — Delaney  v.  Husband, 
64  N.  J.  L.  275,  45  Atl.  265. 

Tennessee. — Coles  v.  Anderson,  8 
Humph.  489.  Compare  Foster  v. 
Blount,  1  Overt.  343. 

Wisconsin. — Hooker  v.  Brandon,  75 
Wis.  8,  43  N.  W.  741. 

8  Delaney  v.  Husband,  64  N.  J.  L. 
275,  45  Atl.  265. 

9  Georffia.—Clv.  Code  (1911),  §§ 
49.55.  .5002;  Friar  v.  Curry,  119  Ga. 
!I0H,  47  S.  K.  206.  See  also  Nisbet  v. 
lyawHon,  1  Ga.  275.  Compare  Com- 
iiiisHionirs   of   Roads    for   o05tli    Hist. 


V.  Griffin  &  W.  P.  Plank-Road  Co.,  9 
Ga.  491. 

Massaclmsetts. — Adams  r.  Robin- 
son, 1  Pick.  4G1 ;  Grosvenor  v.  Dan- 
forth,  16  Mass.  74. 

Michigan. — See  Norberg  v.  Heine- 
man,  59  Mich.  210,  26  N.  W.  481. 

Neio  Hampshire. — See  Spaulding's 
Appeal,  33  N.  H.  479. 

Texas. — See  Thompson  r.  House,  23 
Tex.  178. 

lOConnett  V.  Chicago,  114  HI.  237, 
29  N.  E.  280. 

n  Bacli  v.  Ballard,  13  La.  Ann.  487. 

"i-i  Alabama. — Riddle  v.  Hanna,  25 
Ala.  484. 

California. — Ricketson  r.  Torres, 
23  Cal.  636;  Woodmen  of  the  World 
r.  Rutledge,  133  Cal.  040,  65  Pac. 
1105. 

il/tc/r/<7aw.^Norl)org  v.  TToincnian, 
59  Mich.  210,  20  N.  W.  4S1. 

Missouri.— \\\ng  v.  Cliarles  Vogel 
Paint  &  Glass  Co.,  46  Mo.  Ai)p.  374. 

Ohio. — Kefauver  V.  Batdorf,  24 
Oliio  Cir.  Ct.  Rep.  664. 


§    282]  AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION.  511 

a  minor,  or  other  person  under  a  like  disability.^^ 

§  282.  Control  of  Proceedings.  —  An  appeal  or  writ  of  er- 
ror having  been  taken,  proceedings  thereon  are  within  the  control 
of  the  attorney  of  record  ^*  as  etfectually  as  are  all  other  proceed- 
ings during  the  pendency  of  the  litigation;  ^^  and  the  lawful  stipu- 
lations entered  into  by  such  attorneys  cannot  bo  disregarded.^^ 
Thus  counsel  for  the  respective  parties  on  aj)peal  may  stipulate 
that  the  cause  shall  be  argued  before  one  judge,  where  the  others 
are  disqualitied.  and  that  his  decision  shall  be  entered  wp  as  the 
judgment  of  the  court."  So,  an  attorney,  by  virtue  of  his  gen- 
eral authority,  may,  after  judgment  has  been  entered,  allow  an 
extension  of  time  in  which  to  perfect  an  appeal. ^^  An  agreement 
by  an  attorney  to  withdraw  an  appeal  must,  in  the  absence  of 
proof  to  the  contrary,  be  presumed  to  be  made  by  the  client's  au- 
thority.^^ But  where  an  attorney  prosecuting  an  action  on  behalf 
of  a  school  district  refused  to  dismiss  an  appeal  at  the  request  of 
the  directors  who  had  authority  to  control  the  action,  a  motion  by 
the  directors  to  dismiss,  though  informal,  was  allowed.^"  The  stip- 
ulations entered  into  by  the  attorneys  for  the  respective  parties 
must,  of  course,  conform  to  the  prevailing  practice,  whether  estab- 
lished by  statute  or  rule  of  court. ■^  But  one  who  agrees  that  certain 
formalities  may  be  dispensed  with  in  the  preparation  of  the  case 
for  review,  will  not  thereafter  be  heard  to  complain  of  their  ab- 

Texas. — Thompson     v.     House,     23  20  School    Dist.    No.    116    r.    School 

Tex.  178.  Dist.   No.  141,   79  Kan.   407,   9!)   Pac. 

13  Riddle  r.  Hanna.  25  Ala.  484.  620,    wherein    it   was    said:      '"If   the 

14  Grand  Court  of  Colanthe  v.  effect  upon  the  rights  of  the  school 
Downs,  98  !Miss.  740,  53  So.  417;  district  were  reasonably  in  doubt,  we 
State  V.  Kitchen,  41  N.  J.  L.  229:  sliould  hesitate  to  recognize  the  in- 
Rogan  V.  Walker,  1  Wis.  597.  See  formal  procedure.  ...  It  is  a 
also  Bourbon  Stock-Yards  Co.  v.  matter  of  great  public  concern  to 
Louisville,  63  S.  W.  285,  23  Ky.  L.  both  school  districts  involved  in  tliis 
Rep.  420.  action    that    fruitless    litigation    be- 

15  See  supra,  §  246  et  seq.  tween     them      sliould      not     be     pro- 

16  State  V.  Kitchen,  41  N.  J.  L.  229.  tracted." 

17  Rogan  V.  Walker,  1  Wis.  597.  l  Louisville,   N.  A.,   etc.,   R.    Co.   v. 
ISHoffenberth    v.    Muller,    12    Abb.       Roland,    70    Ind.    595;    Pendleton     v. 

Pr.  N.  S.   (N.  Y.)   221.  Pendleton,   1    Thomp.   &   C.    (N.   Y.) 

19  Ward  V.  Hollins,  14  Md.   158.  95. 


512 


AUTHORITY    IN    CONDUCTING    LITIGATION. 


[§  283 


sence,  and  it  has  been  held  that  he  will  be  enjoined  from  taking 
advantage  thereof,^  no  fraud  or  collusion  being  shown.' 

§  283.  Waiving  Right  of  Review.  —  The  general  rule  is 
that  an  attorney  has  implied  authority  to  waive  his  client's  right 
to  prosecute  an  appeal  or  writ  of  error,*  especially  where  such 
waiver  is  based  on  a  sufficient  consideration.^  This  ruling  is  predi- 
cated on  the  theory  that  while  it  is  the  duty  of  an  attorney  to  act 
with  the  utmost  good  faith  to  his  client,  it  is  not  his  duty  to  prose- 
cute an  appeal  which  he  believes  to  be  hopeless  or  unnecessary.^ 
The  waiver  should  be  expressed  in  writing  and  made  part  of  the 
record  in  the  cause.'  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  held  that  an 
attorney  cannot  waive  his  client's  rights  in  this  respect,*  In  case 
of  fraud  or  mistake,  the  court  has  the  power  to  relieve  a  party  from 
the  effects  of  such  an  agreement,^  especially  where  the  attorney  is 
unable  to  respond  in  damages.^" 


2  iMempliis  Consol.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Simp- 
son, 118  Tenn.  532,  103  S.  W.  788. 

3  Grand  Court  of  Colanthe  v. 
Downs,  98  Miss.  740,  53  So.  417. 

*  Illinois. — Leahy  v.  Stone,  115  111. 
App.   138. 

/oira.— Matter  of  Heath,  83  la.  215, 
48  X.  W.  1037. 

Maryland. — Mackey  r.  Daniel,  59 
Md.  484. 

\etr  Hampshire. — Pike  v.  Emerson, 
5  X.  II.  393,  22  Am.  Dec.  468. 

Washington. — Jones  r.  Spokane 
Valley  Land  &  Water  Co.,  44  Wash. 
146,  87   Pac.  65. 

6  Mackey  v.  Daniel,  59  Md.  484. 

A  gratuitous  waiver  of  tlie  rii^ht 
of  apfieal  is  ineffective.  Keouj^han  r. 
Ki|iiital)le  Oil  Co.,  116  La.  773,  41  So. 
SS;  .Jones  r.  Spokane  Vall<'y  l>;iii(l  it 
Wiiter  Co..  44   Wasl:.   146,  87   Pac.  Vh). 

G  In  re  il-atli,  83  la.  215,  48  N.  W. 
1037. 


7  Jones  r.  Spokane  Valley  Land  & 
Water  Co.,  44  Wash.  146,  87  Pac.  65. 

8  People  r.  Xew  York,  11  Ahb.  Pr. 
(X.  Y. )  66.  See  also  Merriman  r. 
Peck,  96  Mich.  603,  55  N.  W.  1021, 
wherein  it  was  said  that  where  an 
appellant  employs  an  attorney  in 
regular  standing,  and  does  all  that  is 
required  by  the  advice  of  his  attorney 
to  perfect  an  appeal,  he  ought  not  to 
lose  his  right  thereto,  where  justice 
requires  a  revision  of  the  case, 
through  the  neglect  or  oversight  of 
the  attorney. 

.In  attorney  ad  litem  has  no  power 
to  bind  his  client  not  to  appeal  by 
making  an  agreement  to  that  effect 
with  tlie  opposing  attorney.  La 
Societe  Canadienne-Francaise,  etc.,  v. 
l>aveluy,  20  Can.  Sup.  Ct.  449. 

9  Pike  V.  Emerson,  5  X.  H.  393.  22 
Am.  Dec.  468. 

l0Peo])le  V.  New  York,  11  Abb.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)  66. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

LIABILITY  GENERALLY. 

For  Breach  of  Duty. 

§  284.  In  GeneraL 

285.  By  Fraudulent  Conduct. 

286.  In  Reference  to   Papers  of  Client. 

287.  Release  of  Liability. 

For  Unauthorized  Acts. 

288.  Generally. 

289.  As  Dependent  on  Instructions. 

290.  Unauthorized   Appearance. 

291.  Unautliorized  Compromise  or  Release. 

For  Acts  of  Partners,  tSubstitutes,   Clerks,  and  Assistants, 

292.  Acts  of  Partners. 

293.  Acts  of  Substitutes. 

294.  Acts  of  Clerks  and  Assistants. 

LiahiUty   of  Attorney   to    Third   Persons. 

295.  For   Fraudulent   or   Tortious   Acts. 

296.  For  False  Arrest  or  Imprisonment. 

297.  For  Unlawful  Execution  and  Seizure  of  Property. 

298.  For  Overpayments. 

299.  For  Moneys  Received  on  Account  of  Third  Person. 

300.  For  Negligence. 

301.  As  Garnishee. 

302.  Effect  of  Acting  in  Good  Faith. 

Liability  of  Client  to  Third  Persons. 

303.  For  Acts  of  Attorney. 

304.  For   Statements   in   Pleadings. 

For  Costs  and  Expenses. 

305.  Liability  for  Costs  Generally. 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I. — 3.!.  5]^3 


514  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  [§§    284,  285 

306.  Because  of  Misconduct  or  Negligence. 

307.  Because  of   Representing  Nonresident   Litigants. 

308.  Because  of  Indorsement  of  Writ. 

309.  Because  of  Beneficial  Interest. 

310.  Fees  and  Expenses. 

311.  Enforcement  of  Liability. 


For  Breach  of  Duty. 

§  284.  In  General.  —  The  relation  of  attorney  and  client  is 
one  of  the  highest  trust  and  confidence,  and  requires  the  attorney 
to  observe  the  utmost  good  faith  toward  his  client,^  and  to  use  due 
care,  skill  and  diligence  in  the  performance  of  his  professional 
duties.^  He  owes  to  his  client  not  only  all  the  industry  and  appli- 
cation of  which  he  is  capable,  but  also  unshaken  fidelity.^  Thus 
an  attorney  cannot  represent  conflicting  interests,*  nor  acquire  in- 
terests adverse  to  those  of  his  client.^  But  this  duty  extends  no 
further ;  thus  it  will  not  justify  an  attempt  to  evade  the  fair  oper- 
ation of  the  law,  or  to  impede  the  administration  of  justice.^  It 
would  be  deplorable,  indeed,  if  a  lawyer  felt  that  he  was  under  an 
obligation  to  his  client  to  maintain  positions  which  did  not  accord 
with  his  own  notions  of  law  and  justice,  simply  because  they  tend- 
ed to  his  client's  advantage.  The  lawyer  owes  a  duty  to  the  court, 
to  himself,  and  to  society,  as  w^ell  as  to  his  client,  which  he  is 
equally  bound  to  observe.'  Dealings  between  attorney  and  client 
generally  liave  been  considered  heretofore.^ 

§  285.  By  Fraudulent  Conduct.  —  As  to  what  shall  consti- 
tute a  fi-aud  u])oii  tbc  client  l)y  his  attorney,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
consult  the  gcueral  subject  of  dealings  between  attorney  and  cli- 
ent, the  acquisition  of  adverse  interests,  and  the  representation  of 

lEx  1).  f;il)crson.  4  Crancli    (C.  C.)  Beam  Co.  r.   Bakcwrll.    224   Mo.   203, 

.'")03.  10  Fed.  ('as.  Xo.  .-).3SS :    Ilaverty  123  S.  W.  561. 

r.  Haverty.  3.5  Kan.  43S.   1  I    I'ac.  304;  4  See  mpra.  %%  174-182. 

In   re  Egan.  22  S.  D.  3.-).-).    117  X.  W.  5  8ee  mpra,  §§   164-173. 

874.      See   also   Asli.r    /•.    I'..cI<ii.t,   41  6  Ex  p.  fJiberson.  4  (ranch    (C.  C.) 

S.  \V.  3.-),  10  Ky.  F..  i;.]..  :yl] .  .'")03,  10  Fed.  (^as.  No.  .1.388. 

2  S.^c  infra,  §§  312-330.  7  Sprague  r.   Mooic.    136   Midi.  426, 

3||;iv.Tfy  r.   flnvcrfy.  :'..")    Kan.  438,  99  N.  W.  377. 

II    I'ii.-.   ."{(M:    XatioiKil    Hollow    IJrake  « See  .v  »/>/•«,  §§   152-163. 


§  286] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


515 


those  whose  interests  conflict,  which  have  been  already  considered.* 
As  a  general  rule,  it  may  be  said  that  an  attorney  is  liable  to  his 
client  for  any  loss  sustained  by  the  latter  in  consequence  of  the 
attorney's  fraud,^°  as,  for  instance,  where  he  takes  an  im})r()per 
advantage  of  his  client,^^  by  concealing  information,^'^  or  by  false 
representations  of  fact,^^  or  as  to  the  law,^*  or  by  representing  con- 
flicting interests,^^  or  acquiring  interests  adverse  to  tliose  uf  his 
client.^^    The  fraud  must,  of  course,  be  established.^' 


§  286.  In  Reference  to  Papers  of  Client.  —  Where  a  client 
intrusts  important  papers  to  his  attorney,  the  latter  should  not  only 
return  them  when  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  ceases,  but 
should  not  wilfully  do  anything  by  which  another  can  gain  infor- 
mation concerning  such  papers ;  and  the  fact  that  the  client,  with- 
out cause,  discharges  the  attorney  without  paying  him  and  employs 
another,  does  not  alter  the  case,  though  it  may  give  the  attornej^  a 
right  to  retain  such  papers  by  virtue  of  his  lien.^®     But  an  attor- 


9  See  siipra,  §§  152-182. 

lOMcLead  v.  Applegate,  127  Intl. 
349,  26  N.  E.  830 ;  Hoopes  v.  Burnett, 
26  Miss.  428;  Looff  v.  Lawton,  97 
N.  Y.  478;  Heilbroner  v.  Douglass,  32 
Tex.  215;  Porter  r.  Kruegel,  (Tex.) 
155  S.  W,  174;  Roller  v.  McGraw,  63 
W.  Va.  462,  60  S.  E.  410.  See  also 
Krause  r.  Lloyd.  100  Iowa  666,  69 
N.  W.  1062.     And  see  supra,  %  156. 

nKcigal  c.  Wood,  1  .Johns.  Ch. 
(JSr.  Y.)  402.  And  see  svpra,  §§  152- 
163. 

12  Baker  v.  Humphrey,  101  U.  S. 
494,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  1065; 
L'Amoureux  v.  Vandenburgh,  7 
Paige  (X.  Y.)  316,  32  Am.  Dec.  635. 
See  also  supra,  §   155. 

i3Downard  r.  Hadley,  116  Ind. 
13],  18  N.  E.  457;  Manley  r.  Felty, 
146  Ind.  194,  45  N.  E.  74;  Hazelrigg  v. 
Brenton,  2  Diiv.  (Ky.)  525;  Wheaton 
V.  Xewcombe,  48  Super.  Ct.  (N.  Y.) 
2]5:  Allen  v.  Fravvley,  106  Wis.  638, 
82  X.  W.  593. 


14  Hubbard  v.  McLean,  115  Wis.  9, 
90  X.  W.  1077. 

15  Sec  supra,   §§   174-182. 

16  Hooker  y.Axford,  .33  Mich.  453; 
Taylor  v.  Young,  56  Mich.  285,  22 
X.  W.  799.  And  see  supra,  §§  164- 
173. 

17  Fraud  did  not  exist  in  the  fol- 
lowing cases :  W^illiams  v.  Reed,  3 
Mason  405,  29  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  17,733; 
Robertson  i'.  Chapman,  152  U.  S.  673, 
14  S.  Ct.  741,  38  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  592. 
Phillips  V.  Rhodes,  2  Colo.  App.  70, 
29  Pac.  1011;  Bachman  v.  Goldmark, 
48  Super.  Ct.  (X.  Y.)  549;  Dewitt  v. 
Herron,  39  Tex.  675. 

18  In  re  Hahn,  11  Abb.  X.  Cas. 
fX.  Y.)  423.  See  also  In  re  Wheat- 
croft,  6  Ch.  D.  (Eng.)  97,  26  W.  R. 
69,  46  L.  J.  Ch.  669:  Howard  r.  Gunn, 
32  Beav.  (Eng.)  402;  In  re  Thomson, 
20  Beav.  (Eng.)  545,  1  Jur.  X.  S. 
718;  Robertson  v.  Clocke,  18  App. 
Div.  363.  46  X.  Y.  S.  87. 

Several       Clients       Interested      in 


516 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§§  287,288 


ney  whose  office  has  been  broken  open,  and  papers  stolen  there- 
from, without  negligence  on  his  part,  is  not  liable  for  the  loss.^^ 

§  287.  Release  of  Liability.  —  The  client  may,  of  course,  re- 
lease his  attorney  from  all  liability  in  the  performance  of  his  pro- 
fessional duties.  In  such  case,  however,  the  strict  rules,  hereto- 
fore considered,  in  connection  with  dealings  between  attorney  and 
client,  will  apply ;  ^^  and  it  must  be  clearly  shown  that  the  giving 
of  such  release  was  free  from  fraud,  influence,  or  mistake,  and  that 
the  client  was  fairly  acquainted  with  all  the  material  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances.^ 

For  Unauthorized  Acts. 

§  288.  Generally.  —  The  principles  stated  heretofore  in  dis- 
cussing the  scope  of  an  attorney's  general  authority,^  and  also  his 
authority  to  appear  for  litigants,^  and  conduct  their  litigation,* 
should  be  consulted  here  for  such  aid  as  they  may  afford  in  deter- 
mining the  implied  authority  of  counsel.  When  an  attorney  un- 
dertakes, without  his  client's  consent,  to  step  outside  the  bounds  of 
his  implied  authority,  he  does  so  at  his  own  risk,  and  is  respon- 
sible to  the  client  for  any  injury  sustained  by  reason  of  such  un- 
authorized act ;  *  and,  in  the  performance  of  a  task  so  undertaken, 
he  will  be  held  to  the  same  strictness  in  the  manner  of  its  discharge 


Papers. — A  person  is  not  entitled  to 
the  possession  of  notes  placed  in  the 
hands  of  an  attorney  for  collection 
where  an  interest  in  tiie  notes  is  lield 
by  others,  and  he  does  not  show  their 
consent  to  such  possession,  nor  oft'er 
to  indemnify  them.  Bougher  r.  Sco- 
bey,  23  Ind.  58:3. 

The  minutes  of  testimony  taken  by 
a  counsel  upon  the  trial  of  an  action 
in  whicli  he  is  retained  belong  to  him- 
self, and  not  to  liis  client.  Anony- 
mous, :n   Me.  oOO. 

19  Hill  r.  J'.arney,  18  N.   II.  (107. 

20,Se<>  supra,  ^i?   152-10;]. 

1  Kissam  r.  S(|uires,  102  Ai)p.  Div. 
5:5(i,  'J2  X.   V.  S.  87;J. 


A  release  of  all  liability  executed 
by  the  client,  in  the  absence  of  fraud, 
is  a  good  defense.  Derrickson  v. 
C'ady,  7  Pa.  St.  27.  See  also  Hamsher 
i\  Kline,  57  Pa.  St.  397. 

2  See  supoa,  %%  1!)9-214. 

2  See  supra,  §§  229-245. 

4  See  supra,  §§  246-283. 

5  Jones  c.  Wolcott,  2  Allen  (Mass.) 
247 ;  Coopwood  v.  Baldwin,  25  Miss. 
129.  See  also  Fitch  v.  Scott,  3  How. 
(Miss.)  319,  34  Am.  Dec.  86;  Arm- 
strong r.  Craig,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
387;  V^ootli  r.  McEachen,  181  N.  Y. 
28,  2  Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  N.  E.  488, 
rvrcrslng  91  App.  Div.  30,  86  N.  Y.  S. 
431. 


i 


§§   1>S1),  2i)0] 


LIABILITY    GENEilALLY. 


»17 


as  if  it  were  within  the  terms  of  his  eontract.^  The  liability  of  an 
attorney  to  third  persons  injured  by  his  unauthorized  conduct  will 
be  considered  later.' 

§  289.  As  Dependent  on  Instructions.  —  It  is,  of  course, 
the  duty  of  an  attorney  to  advise  his  client  to  the  best  of  his  judg- 
ment and  ability,®  but  the  client  is  not  bound  to  follow  the  advice 
so  given ;  and  where  the  attorney  has  been  instructed  by  his  client, 
and  such  instructions  do  not  conflict  with  the  attorney's  duty  as  an 
officer  of  the  court,  it  is  safer  for  counsel  to  follow  the  client's  in- 
structions so  far  as  the  rules  of  law  will  permit,^  for,  should  dam- 
age result  to  his  client  in  consequence  of  his  failure  to  do  so,  the 
attorney's  liability  is  plain.^°  But  a  client  has  no  right  to  control 
his  attorney  in  the  due  and  orderly  conduct  of  a  suit.^^  The  fail- 
ure to  follow  instructions  in  the  collection  of  claims  has  been  con- 
sidered elsewhere. ^^ 

§  290.  Unauthorized  Appearance.  —  An  attorney  must  re- 
spond in  damages  for  any  loss  sustained  in  consequence  of  his  un- 
authorized appearance.^^     In  the  absence  of  substantial  injury, 


6  Spangler  v.  Sellers,  5  Fed.  882. 

7  See  infra,  §§  295-302. 

8  Nave  V.  Baird,  12  Ind.  318.  And 
see  also  §  155. 

9  Nave  V.  Baird,  12  Ind.  318;  Lord 
r.  Hamilton,  34  Ore.  443,  56  Pac.  525 ; 
Harris's  Appeal,    (Pa.)    6  Atl.  761. 

It  is  a  fair  presumption  that  an 
attorney  acts  acording  to  the  instruc- 
tions of  his  client,  unless  in  a  case  of 
such  gross  negligence  that  a  violation 
may  be  inferred.  Holmes  v.  Peck,  1 
R.  I.  242. 

lOO'Halloran  v.  Marshall,  8  Ind. 
App.  394,  35  N.  E.  926;  Gilbert  v. 
Williams,  8  Mass.  51,  5  Am.  Dec.  77; 
Armstrong  v.  Craig,  18  Barb.  (N.  Y.) 
387;  Fox  ;;.  Jones,  4  Tex.  App.  Civ. 
Cas.  §  29,  14  S.  W.  1007. 

Laicyer  as  Client.— Where  the  ac- 
quiescence of  a  client,  who  is  a  lawyer, 


is  the  result  of  a  personal  examina- 
tion of  the  authorities  and  iiis  indi- 
vidual knowledge  and  superior  skill 
as  a  lawyer,  he  is  estopped  to  plead 
tlie  negligence  of  his  attorney.  Carr 
i\  Glover,  70  Mo.  App.  242. 

11  Anonymous,  1  Wend.  (N.  Y. ) 
108.     See  also  supra,   §§   246-249. 

12  See  supra,  §  203   et  seq. 

13  England. — Bayley  v.  Buckland,  1 
Exch.  1,  llJur.  564,  5Dowl.&  L.  115; 
Hambridge  v.  De  La  Crouee,  3  C.  B. 
742,  54  E.  C.  L.  742. 

United  States. — Shelton  v.  Tiffin,  6 
How.  163,  12  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  387; 
Field  V.  Gibbs,  Pet.  (C.  C.)  155,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,766;  Robb  ;;.  Vos,  155 
U.  S.  13,  15  S.  Ct.  4,  39  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
52. 

Alabama. — Wheeler  V.  Bullard,  6 
Port.  352. 


il8 


LIABILITY    GEXEEALLY. 


[§   291 


however,  the  recovery  must  be  norainal."  The  right  to  appear  for 
litigants  generally,  unauthorized  appearances,  objection  thereto, 
and  the  elfect  thereof,  have  been  considered  heretofore.^*  Injuries 
to  third  persons  because  of  an  unauthorized  appearance  will  be  con- 
sidered later/® 


§  291.  Unauthorized    Compromise    or    Release.  —  It    has 
been  stated  elsewhere  ^'  that,  in  the  absence  of  express  authority 


Arkansas. — Tally  v.  Reynolds,  1 
Ark.  99,  31  Am.  Dec.  737. 

Iowa. — Piggott  V.  Addicks,  3  G. 
Greene  427,  56  Am.  Dec.  547 ; 
Harshey  v.  Blackmarr,  20  Iowa  161, 
89  Am.  Dec.  520. 

Kansas. — Reynolds  r.  Fleming,  30 
Kan.  106,  1  Pac.  61,  46  Am.  Rep.  86. 

Kentucky. — Atkinson  r.  Howlett, 
11  Ky.  L.  Rep.  364. 

Louisiana. — Walworth  f.  Hender- 
son, 9  La.  Ann.  339;  Marvel  r. 
Manouvrier,  14  La.  Ann.  3,  74  Am. 
Dec.  424. 

Maryland. — Munnikuyson  v.  Dor- 
sett,  2  Har.  &  G.  374:  Fowler  v.  Lee, 
10  Gill  &  .J.  358,  32  Am.  Dec.  172. 

Massachusetts. — .Jones  r.  Wolcott, 
2  Allen  247;  Smith  f.  Bowditch,  7 
Pick.  137. 

Michicffin. — Arno  r.  Wayne  Circuit 
Judge,  42  Mich.  362,  4  X.  W.  147. 

Mississippi. — Schirling  v.  Scites,  41 
Miss.  644. 

\eic  Hampshire. — Bunton  r.  Ly- 
ford,  37  N.  H.  512,  75  Am.  Dec.  144; 
Smytii  V.  Balch,  40  X.  H.  363. 

Xcu:  Jersey. — Hendrickson  v.  Hen- 
drickson,  15  X.  J.  L.  102;  Ward  v. 
Price,  25  N.  J.  L.  225. 

New  York. — Allen  v.  Stone,  10 
Barb.  547;  Armstrong  v.  Craig,  18 
Barb.  387;  Ellsworth  r.  Campbell,  31 
Barb.  1.34;  Chatham  Bank  r.  Hoch- 
stadter,    11    Daly    343;     BogardMs    V. 


Livingston,  2  Hilt.  236;  Williams  v. 
Van  Valkenburg,  16  How.  Pr.  144; 
O'Hara  v.  Brophy,  24  How.  Pr.  379; 
.Jackson  v.  Stewart,  6  Johns.  34;  Den- 
ton f.  Xoyes,  6  Johns.  296,  5  Am.  Dec. 
237;  People  v.  Bradt,  7  Johns.  539; 
American  Ins.  Co.  t.  Oakley,  9  Paige 
496,  38  Am.  Dec.  561;  Grazebrook  v. 
McCreedie,  9  Wend.  437 ;  Adams  v. 
Gilbert,  9  Wend.  499;  Ingalls  V. 
Spraguc,  10  Wend.  672;  Powers  r. 
Trenor,  3  Hun  3,  5  Thomp.  &  C.  231 ; 
Watrous  r.  Kearney,  11  Hun  584; 
Post  r.  Charlesworth,  66  Hun  256,  21 
X.  Y.  S.  168;  Runberg  r.  Johnson,  11 
Civ.  Proc.  283,  5  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  860; 
Brown  r.  Xichols,  9  Abb.  Pr.  X.  S.  1; 
Brown  v.  Xichols,  42  X.  Y.  26;  Sperry 
V.  Reynolds,  65  X.  Y.  179;  Fergu- 
son r.  Crawford,  70  X.  Y.  253.  26  Am. 
Rep.  589:  Chatfield  v.  Simonson,  92 
X.  Y.  209. 

Pennsylvania. — Cyphert  f.  Mc- 
Clune,  22  Pa.  St.  195. 

^'ermont. — Coit  r.  Sheldon,  1  Tyler 
300;  Spaulding  r.  Swift,  18  Vt.  214; 
Abbott  f.  Dutton,  44  Vt.  546,  8  Am. 
Rep.  394. 

Wisconsin. — Cleveland  r.  Hopkins, 
55  Wis.  387,  13  X.  W.  225. 

14  Harrington  r.  Huntley,  4  Alb.  L. 
J.  307. 

15  Sec  snpra,  §§  229-245. 

16  See  infra,  §  295  et  seq. 
"See  supra,  §§  215-228. 


§    292]  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  519 

from  his  client,  an  attorney  cannot  compromise  or  release  the 
client's  claims  or  demands ;  thus  he  cannot  settle  for  less  than  the 
amount  due,  nor  accept  anything  other  than  money,  in  payment 
thereof;  and,  therefore,  an  attorney  guilty  of  a  hreach  of  duty  in 
this  respect  must  answer  for  any  loss  which  his  client  may  sustain 
in  consequence  of  his  unauthorized  act.^^  In  this  connection  it 
must  be  remembenHl  that,  in  the  event  of  an  emergency  imperative- 
ly demanding  the  exercise  of  authority  to  compromise,  the  attorney 
may  use  a  just  and  reasonable  discretion,  and  is  not  liable  if  he 
acts  in  good  faith,  and  with  reasonable  skill,  care,  and  diligence.^^ 
So,  the  unauthorized  act  may  be  ratified  by  the  client  and  thus 
rendered  effective.^"  Thus  where  an  attorney,  holding  an  account 
for  collection,  compromises  with  the  debtor,  and  his  client  makes 
no  objection  thereto,  but  does  object  to  the  fee  charged  by  the  at- 
torney, the  latter  cannot  return  the  money  to  the  debtor  without 
the  client's  authority,  and  he  will  be  liable  for  so  doing.'' 

For  Acts  of  Partners,  Suhstitiites,  Clerks  and  Assistants. 

§  292.  Acts  of  Partners.  —  It  has  been  stated  heretofore  that 
the  employment  of  a  firm  of  lawyers,  even  though  only  one  of  them 
has  been  consulted,  is  equivalent  to  the  retainer  of  each  of  the  part- 
ners.^ Therefore,  the  firm  is  responsible  for  the  acts  of  its  indi- 
vidual members  within  the  scope  of  their  authority,'  even  though 

18  Alabama. — Cameron     v.     Clarke,  A^eit>  York. — Carstens  v.  Barnstorf, 

11  Ala.  259;   Goodman  v.  Walker,  30       H  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S.  442. 
Ala.  482,  68  Am.  Dec.  134.  North  DaJcota.—megi  v.  Phelps,  4 

/Wmois.— People  v.  Cole,  84  111.  327.       ^-  ^-  ^"2,  60  N.  W.  402. 

Indiana.— Eepp    r.    Wiles,    3    Ind.  Ohio.— Christy  v.  Douglas,  Wright 

485. 

19  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Bu- 
chanan, 100  Ind.  63.  And  see  supra, 
§  218. 

20  See  supra,  §§   211-214. 

1  Nathan  v.  Halsell,   91   Miss.   785, 
Mississippi. — Lombard    V.   Whiting,       ^c  Oq    ocg 

1  Walk.  229;   Fitch  v.  Scott,  3  How.  2  See  supra,  §  184.     See  also  Marsh 

314,   34    Am.    Dec.   86;    Coopwood    v.  ^,.  Qold,  2  Pick.   (Mass.)   285;   Ganzer 

Baldwin,  25  Miss.  129.  r.  Schiffbauer,  40  Neb.  633,  59  N.  W. 

Missouri. — Houx  V.  Russell,  10  Mo.  98. 
246.  3  Richardson     v.     Richardson,     100 


App.  167,  29  N.  E.  441. 

Louisiana. — Woodrow  v.  Hennen,  6 
Mart.  N.  S.  157. 

Massachusetts. — Wilson  v.  Coffin,  2 
Cush.  316. 


520 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  292 


thej  act  negligently,*  imaiithorixedly,^  or  fraudulently.^  So  the 
firm  is  responsible  for  claims  placed  in  its  care  for  collection/  ir- 
respective of  the  fact  that  one  of  the  members  thereof  did  not  par- 
ticipate in  the  transaction.*  Payment  to  one  of  the  partners  is  pay- 
ment to  all,^  though  made  after  the  dissolution  of  the  firm.^°  But 
the  firm  is  not  liable  for  the  acts  of  one  of  its  members  outside  the 


Mich.  364,  59  X.  W.  178;  Ganzer  i;. 
Schiffbaiier,  40  Neb.  633,  59  N.  W. 
98;  Warner  v.  Griswold,  8  Wend. 
(X.  Y.)   665. 

4Priddy  v.  Mackenzie,  205  Mo.  181, 
103  S.  W.  968;  Warner  v.  Griswold,  8 
Wend.  (N.  Y.)   665. 

5  Gordon  v.  Coolidge,  1  Sumn.  537, 
10  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  5,606. 

6  Blair  v.  Bromley,  11  Jur.  (Eng.) 
617.  16  L.  J.  Ch.  495. 

T  Illinois. — Smyth  v.  Harvie,  31  111. 
62,  83  Am.  Dec.  202. 

Indiana. — Lupton  v.  Taylor,  39  Ind. 
App.  412,  78  X.  E.  689,  rehearing  de- 
nied 39  Ind.  App.  420,  79  X.  E.  523. 

A'e«.(Mc/.-^.— McGill  v.  McGill,  2 
Mete.  258. 

Louisiana. — Dwight  v.  Simon,  4  La. 
Ann.  490. 

Tennessee. — Porter  v.  Vance,  14 
Lea  630. 

Wisconsin. — Gilchrist  v.  Brande,  58 
Wia.  184,  15  X.  W.  817. 

8  Dwight  V.  Simon,  4  La.  Ann.  490; 
Porter  v.  Vance,  14  Lea   (Tenn.)  629. 

Where  one  member  of  a  firm  fur- 
nishes security  for  his  client's  attach- 
ment, and  receives  money  from  his 
client  to  indemnify  the  surety,  he 
acts  within  his  authority,  and  tlie 
otlier  members  of  the  firm  are  liable 
to  the  client  for  the  money  so  depos- 
ited, though  they  had  no  knowledge 
of  the  fact  and  thougli  tiic  i)artner 
receiving  it  never  accounted  for  it  as 
a  Tirm  asset.  Kornes  v.  Wright,  91 
Iowa  3!)2,  59  X.  W.  51. 


9  England. — Ilarman  v.  Johnson,  2 
El.  &  Bl.  61,  75  E.  C.  L.  61 ;  Dundon- 
ald  V.  Masterman,  L.  R.  7  Eq.  504,  38 
L.  J.  Ch.  350,  17  W.  R.  548. 

Alahama. — Cook  v.  Bloodgood,  7 
Ala.  683. 

Indiana. — Lupton  v.  Taylor,  39  Ind. 
App.  412,  78  N.  E.  689,  rehearing  de- 
nied 39  Ind.  App.  420,  79  X.  E.  523. 

Kansas. — Cummins  v.  Heald,  24 
Kan.  600,  36  Am.  Rep.  264. 

Kentuckg.— McGill  V.  McGill,  2 
Mete.  258. 

Louisiana. — Dwight  v.  Simon,  4  La. 
Ann.  490. 

Michigan. — Richardson  v.  Richard- 
son, 100  Mich.  364,  59  X.  W.  178. 

Mississippi. — Wilkinson  v.  Gris- 
wold, 12  Smedes  &  M.  669. 

Missouri. — Bryant  v.  Hawkins,  47 
Mo.  410;  Priddy  v.  Mackenzie,  205 
Mo.  181,  103  S.  W.  968. 

yew  York. — McFarland  v.  Crary, 
8  Cow.  259. 

10  Smyth  V.  Harvie,  31  111.  62,  83 
Am.  Dec.  202;  Bryant  v.  Hawkins,  47 
:\Io.  410;   Poole  r.  Gist,  4  McCord  L. 

But  see  Ayrault  v.  Chamberlin,  26 
Barb.  (X.  Y.)  83,  wherein  it  was  held 
that  where  a  partnership  between  at- 
torneys is  dissolved  after  they  have 
commenced  a  suit  to  foreclose  a  mort- 
gage, and  a  new  partnership  is  formed 
consisting  of  one  of  the  members  of 
the  old  firm  and  a  new  nu'mber,  and 
the  new  member  retires  from  tlie  firm, 
and  transfers  Iiia  interests  in  the  costs 
of  the  suit  before   the   monev    is   col- 


i:93] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


521 


ordinary  course  of  its  business ;  ^^  thus  there  is  no  firm  liability  for 
a  sum  borrowed  by  one  of  the  partners  for  his  own  purposes.^^ 

§  293.  Acts  of  Substitutes.  —  As  a  general  rule  an  attorney 
has  no  j^owcr  to  delegate  the  authority  reposed  in  him  to  another,^' 
and  if  he  does  so,  without  his  client's  consent,  he  becomes  liable  for 
negligence,  default,  or  wrongdoing  on  the  part  of  his  substitute.^* 
Thus  an  attorney  who  receives  a  claim  for  collection  binds  himself 
to  exercise  reasonable  care,  skill  and  diligence  in  the  perfornumce 
of  the  duties  so  undertaken,  and  the  fact  that  he  entrusts  another 
with  the  collection  does  not  relieve  him  from  his  obligations  in  this 
respect.''^    This  measure  of  responsibilit}'  may,  of  course,  be  some- 


lected,  the  retiring  member  is  not 
liable  for  the  default  of  his  former 
partner  in  not  paying  over  the  money 
afterwards  received  by  him. 

"Plumer  v.  Gregory,  L.  R.  18  Eq. 
(Eng.)  621,  43  L.  J.  Ch.  616;  Harman 
v.  Johnson,  2  El.  &  Bl.  61,  75  E.  C.  L. 
61,  3  C.  &  K.  272,  17  Jur.  1096.  See 
also  Sims  v.  Brutton,  5  Exch.  (Eng.) 
802,  20  L.  J.  Exch.  41;  Chilton  v. 
Cooke,  37  L.  T.  N.  S.  (Eng.)  607; 
Hedley  v.  Bainbridge.  3  Q.  B.  316,  43 
E.  C.  L.  752,  2  Gale  &  D.  483;  Marsli 
r.  Gold,  2  Pick.  (Mass.)  285.  See 
also  Richardson  v.  Richardson,  100 
Midi.  364,  5!)  N.  W.  178,  wherein  it 
was  held  that  the  fact  that  one  mem- 
ber of  a  firm  of  attorneys  employed 
to  manage  a  will  contest  conspired 
with  one  of  the  heirs  to  cheat  tlie 
others  out  of  their  share  of  a  settle- 
ment, after  the  money  had  been  paid 
over  to  the  attorney  in  fact  of  the 
contesting  heirs,  does  not  render  the 
firm  liable  for  a  diversion  of  the 
funds,  where  it  acted  in  good  faith 
until  the  settlement  was  made  and 
money    paid   over. 

1^  Breckenridge  r.  Shrieve,  4  Dana 
(Ky.)   375. 

13  See  supra,  §  210. 


But  see  Planters'  Bank  v.  ]\Iassey, 

2  Heisk.  (Tenn.)  360,  wherein  it  was 
held  that  the  power  to  sue  for  a  debt 
implies  and  carries  with  it  the  power 
to  collect  it;  and  that  the  attorney  in 
whose  hands  it  may  have  been  orig- 
inally placed  for  collection  may  place 
such  claims  in  the  hands  of  other  at- 
torneys for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
suit,  where  it  is  impracticable  or  in- 
convenient for  the  original  attorneys 
to  attend  personally  to  the  case.  See 
also  Singer  v.  Steele,  24  111.  App.  58. 

l^Smallwood  v.  Norton,  20  Me.  83, 
37  Am.  Dec.  39;  Kingston  Bank  v. 
Roosa,  2  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  8;  Rogers 
r.  McKenzie,  81  N.  C.  164.  See  also 
Goodman  v.  Walker,  30  Ala.  492,  68 
Am.  Dec.  134. 

15  England. — Stephens    v.    Badcock, 

3  B.  &  Ad.  354,  23  E.  C.  L.  93;  Sim- 
mons V.  Rose,  31  Beav.  1. 

Alabama. — Mardis    v.    Shackleford, 

4  Ala.  493;  Lewis  v.  Peck,  10  Ala. 
142. 

Arkansas. — Cummins  r.  McT^in,  2 
Ark.  402;  Kellogg  v.  Norris,  10  Ark. 
18. 

Illinois. — Walker  V.  Stevens,  79  111. 
193. 

Indiana. — Pollard    v.     Rowland,    2 


522 


LIABrLITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  294 


what  changed  by  contract,"  as,  for  instance,  an  agreement  to  the 
effect  that  the  client  assumes  the  risk  of  negligence  or  default  on 
the  part  of  the  attorney's  agent  or  substitute.^'' 

§  294.  Acts  of  Clerks  and  Assistants.  —  The  general  rule  is 
that  an  attorney  is  bound  by  the  acts  of  a  clerk,  or  other  person, 
in  charge  of  his  office,  or  of  business  entrusted  to  the  attorney,  in  so 
far  as  such  person  acts  within  the  apparent  scope  of  his  authority.^' 


Blackf.  22;  Abbott  V.  Smith,  4  Ind. 
452;  Clegg  V.  Baumberger,  110  Ind. 
536,  9  N.  E.  700. 

lovM. — Antrobus  v.  Sherman.  65  la. 
230,  21  N.  W.  579,  54  Am.  Rep.  7. 

Kansas. — Cummins  v.  Heald,  24 
Kan.  600,  36  Am.  Rep.  264. 

Maryland. — Dentzel  r.  City,  etc.,  R. 
Co.,  90  Md.  434,  45  Atl.  201. 

Mississippi. — Grayson  v.  Wilkinson, 
5  Smedes  &  M.  268;  \Yilkinson  v. 
Griswold,  12  Smedes  &  M.  669 ;  Dick- 
son V.  Wright,  52  Miss.  585,  24  Am. 
Rep.  677. 

Nebraska. — ^IcDowell  v.  Gregory, 
14  Xeb.  33,  14  N.  W.  899. 

Neio  York. — See  Talcott  r.  Covvdry, 
17  Misc.  333,  39  N.  Y.  S.  1076. 

Pennsylvania. — Riddle  r.  Poorman, 
3  P.  &  W.  224;  Krause  v.  Dorrance, 
10  Pa.  St.  462,  51  Am.  Dec.  496; 
Rhines  v.  Evans,  66  Pa.  St.  192,  5 
Am.  Rep.  365 ;  Bradstreet  r.  Everson, 
72  Pa.  St.  124,  13  Am.  Rep.  668.  See 
also  Morgan  v.  Tener,  83  Pa.  St.  305, 
3  W.  N.  C.  398,  reversing  10  Phila. 
412,  32  Leg.  Int.  08,  1  W.  N.  C.  283. 

Tennessee. — Porter  v.  Vance,  14 
]a':\   629. 

.1  i-dUr.ction  arjrnc]/  cniploycd  to 
collect  a  claim,  who  place  said  claim 
in  tlio  hands  of  an  attorney,  through 
whoHc  ininconduct  it  is  lost,  are  liable 
tlierefor  in  the  ahseiicc  of  an  express 
Htijiuiiition    to   tlie   contrary    iii    llicir 


receipt  given  for  the  claim.     Morgan 
v.  Tener,  83  Pa.  St.  305. 

16  In  Sanger  V.  Dun,  47  Wis.  615,  3 
N.  W.  388,  32  Am.  Rep.  789,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  plaintiffs  delivered  to 
the  defendants  a  claim  for  collection, 
taking  a  receipt  which  stated  that  it 
was  to  be  transmitted  by  mail  for  col- 
lection or  adjustment  to  an  attorney, 
at  the  risk  and  on  account  of  plain- 
tiffs, and  the  proceeds  paid  over  or 
accounted  for  to  them  when  received. 
They  also  signed  a  receipt  in  de- 
fendants' books,  which  stated  the  na- 
ture and  amount  of  the  claim  and  the 
giving  of  such  receipt,  reciting  its 
terms;  and  it  was  held  that,  in  the 
absence  of  gross  negligence  in  making 
the  selection,  defendants  were  not 
liable  for  the  default  of  an  attorney 
employed  by  them  for  making  such 
collection. 

17  Bullitt  V.  Baird,  27  Leg.  Int. 
(Pa.)   171. 

^6  England. — ^Cornelius  v.  Harrison, 
2  F.  &  F.  758. 

Illinois. — Hardy  v.  Kccler,  56  111. 
152. 

loica. — Hayward  v.  Goldsbury,  63 
Iowa  436,  19  N.  W.  307. 

Massachusetts. — Shattuck  r.  Bill, 
142  :\Iass.  56,  7  N.  E.  39,  distinguished 
in  Everett  r.  Henderson,  146  Mass.  89, 
14  N.  E.  933.  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  284; 
.Mulioney    r.    Middlesex    County,    144 


§    295]  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  523 

But  an  attorney  will  not  be  responsible  for  the  conduct  of  one  who 
assumes  to  act  for  him  without  authority;  thus  where,  during  the 
absence  of  an  attorney  from  home,  his  wife  received  and  opened  a 
letter  addressed  to  him  containing  a  draft  payable  to  his  order  for 
collection,  and  the  drawee  paid  the  amount  of  the  draft  to  her,  it 
was  held  that  as  she  had  no  authority  to  receive  payment,  the 
drawee  was  not  discharged.-'^  Whether  communications  made  to 
clerks,  etc.,  are  privileged,  has  been  considered  heretofore. ^° 

Liahil'dy  of  Atiorney  to  Third  Persons. 

§  295.  For  Fraudulent  or  Tortious  Acts.  —  An  attorney's 
liability  does  not  end  with  being  answerable  to  his  client.  He  is 
also  liable  to  third  persons  who  have  suffered  injury  or  loss  in  con- 
sequence of  fraudulent  or  tortious  conduct  on  his  part.^  Thus 
counsel  are  responsible  where  they  have  occasioned  loss  by  wrong- 
fully stopping  goods  in  trmisitu^  or  directing  the  seizure  and  con- 
version of  goods  on  attachment  proceedings,^  or  conspiring  with 
arbitrators  to  obtain  an  unjust  award,*  or  for  advising  a  justice  of 

Mass.  459,  11  N.  E.  689;   Johnson  v.  Minnesota. — Farmer   r.    Crosby,   43 

Sprague,  183  Mass.  102,  66  N.  E.  422.  Minn.  459,  45  N.  W.  860. 

Islew    York. — McGuinness    v.    Man-  Missouri. — Peck    v.     Chouteau,     91 

hattan  E.  Co.,  69  App.  Div.   606,   74  Mo.  138,  3   S.  W.  577,   60   Am.  Rep. 

N.  Y.  S.  1054;  Power  v.  Kent,  1  Cow.  236;  Cameron  Sun  v.  McAnaw,  72  Mo. 

211;    Birkbeck    v.    Stafford,    14    Abb.  App.  196. 

Pr.  285,  23  How.  Pr.  236.  A^e&ro^/ca.— Peckinbaugh  v.  Quillin, 

19  Day   V.  Boyd,   6   Heisk.    (Tenn.)  12  Neb.  586,  12  N.  W.  104. 

458.  New   Jersey. — Schalk    v.    Kingsley, 

•20  See  supra,  §  100.  42  N.  J.  L.  32. 

1  England. — Barker    v.    Braham,    3  New  York. — See  Newberry  v.  Lee,  3 

Wils.  C.  PI.  368;   Crook  v.  Wright,  1  Hill  525;    Deyo  v.  Van  Valkenburgh, 

R.  &  M.  278,  21  E.  C.  L.  438.    See  also  5  Hill  242;  Sleight  v.  Leavenworth,  5 

Stockley  v.  Hornidge,  8  C.  &  P.  11,  34  Duer  122. 

E.  C.  L.  272 ;  Green  v.  Elgie,  5  Q.  B.  2  Poole  v.  Houston  &  T.  C.  R.  Co.,  58 

99,  48  E.  C.  L.  99,  Dav.  &  M.  129.  Tex.  134,  9  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  Cas.  197. 

Kentucky. — Revill  v.  Pettit,  3  Mete.  3  Peckinbaugh    v.    Quillin,    12    Neb. 

314;    Hazelrigg    r.    Brenton,    2    Duv.  586,  12  N.  W.  104. 

525.  4  Hoosac  Tunnel  Dock,   etc.,   Co.   v. 

Massachtisetts. — Bicknell  v.  Dorion,  O'Brien,  137  Mass.  424,  50  Am.  Rep. 

16  Pick.  478.  323. 


524 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  295 


the  peace  to  act  in  violation  of  the  law,^  or  for  abuse  of  process,* 
or  for  bringing  groundless  suits,'  or  for  any  other  unauthorized  act 
bv  Avhich  third  persons  are  injured,*  such  as  falsely  pretending 
to  act  with  authority  from  the  client  in  niakina;  an  aoreement 
whereby  rights  were  relinquished  by  the  third  person.^  But  an  at- 
torney at  law"  is  not  to  be  charged  with  participation  in  the  evil  in- 
tentions of  his  client  merely  because  he  acts  as  attorney  for  such 
client  when  charged  with  fraudulent  intent,  or  when  his  acts  have 
proved  to  be  fraudulent. ^°  Where  an  attorney  acts  in  good  faith, 
and  within  the  scope  of  his  authority,  he  will  be  protected ;  ^^  but  it 


SRevill  v.  Pettit,  3  Mete.  (Ky.) 
314. 

6  Dishaw  r.  Wadleigh,  15  App.  Div. 
205,  4  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  170,  44  N.  Y.  S. 
207. 

7Burnap  v.  Marsh,  13  111.  538; 
Peek  c.  Chouteau,  91  Mo.  151,  3  S.  W. 
577,  GO  Am.  Rep.  23G. 

Two  Persons  of  Same  Name — Suing 
or  Issuing  Execution  against  Wrong 
Indicidual. — An  attorney  employed  to 
bring  a  suit  against  a  certain  party, 
who  by  mistake  brings  it  against 
another  party  of  the  same  name  and 
obtains  judgment  and  execution 
against  him,  or  who,  having  sued  the 
right  defendant,  issues  execution  by 
mistake  against  a  party  having  the 
same  name  as  the  defendant,  is  not 
liable  in  trespass,  the  wrong  being 
purely  an  unintentional  error  and  not 
malicious.  Davies  f.  Jenkins,  1 
Dowl.  &  L.  321,  11  M.  &  W.  745,  7 
Jur.  801.  See  also  Cooper  v.  Harding, 
7  Q.  B.  928,  53  E.  C.  L.  928,  9  Jur. 
777;  Williams  V.  Smith,  14  C.  B.  N. 
S.  596,  108  E.  C.  L.  596. 

Malice  Essential. — In  an  action 
l)rought  against  an  attorney  for  dam- 
ages for  maliciously  inciting  an  insol- 
vent person  to  prosecute  an  unfounded 
action  against  the  plaintifT,  and  wiiich 
was  prosecutetl    nmlcr  u  ciiainpcrtouB 


agreement,  it  is  proper  to  instruct 
that  the  plaintiff  must  show  malice 
and  want  of  probable  cause,  as  in  an 
action  for  malicious  prosecution,  and 
the  action  is  not  maintainable  as  a 
claim  for  damages  for  champerty  ir- 
respective of  malice.  Smits  v.  Hogan, 
35  Wash.  290,  1  Ann.  Cas.  297,  77 
Pac.  390.  And  see  Anderson  i'.  Cana- 
day,    (Okla.)    131  Pac.  697. 

8  Anonymous,  1  Mod.  (Eng. )  209; 
Field  V.  Gibbs,  Pet.  (C.  C)  155,  9 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  4,766;  Walworth  l'. 
Henderson,  9  La.  Ann.  339 ;  Jones  v. 
Wolcott,  2  Allen  (Mass.)  251;  Wil- 
merdings  c.  Fowler,  14  Abb.  Pr.  N.  S. 
(N.  Y.)    249. 

9  Harmening  v.  Howland,  (N.  D.) 
141  N.  W.  131. 

10  McKinney  v.  Curtiss,  60  Mich. 
611,  27  N.  W.  691.  And  see  infra,  § 
302. 

11  England. — Barnes  v.  Addy,  L.  R.  9 
Ch.  244,  43  L.  J.  Ch.  513,  30  L.  T.  N. 
S.  4. 

Georgia. — Brand  v.  Craig,  84  Ga. 
12,  10  S.  E.  369. 

Louisiana. — Heffner  /;.  Wise,  51  La. 
Ann.   1637,  26  So.  415. 

MassacJiusctts.—V>'u-kiuA\  r.  Dorion, 
16  Pick.  478. 

Pennsylvania. — Kier  v.  Quin,  4 
Walk.  339. 


§    296]  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  525 

is  not  necessary  to  show  a  conspiracy  between  the  attorney  and  his 
client,  since  the  attorney  may  so  act  under  his  general  employ- 
ment to  enforce  a  legal  claim,  as  to  render  himself  alone  liable  for 
a  malicious  prosecution  or  arrest. ^^ 

§  296.  For  False  Arrest  or  Imprisonment.  —  The  fact  that 
an  attorney  at  law  has  been  retained  to  bring  or  prosecute  an  ac- 
tion does  not  justify  him  in  knowingly  becoming  the  mere  instru- 
ment of  his  client  in  the  unwarranted  arrest  or  imprisonment  of 
another. ^^  Counsel  who  institute  groundless  suits  in  furtherance 
of  their  own  malevolence,  or  that  of  their  clients,  in  consequence 
of  which  another  is  falsely  arrested  or  imprisoned,  are  undoubtedly 
liable  in  damages.^*  The  law  cannot  sustain  the  perversion  of  its 
process  to  shield  lawlessness  and  wrong,  or  permit  it  to  be  made  the 
tool  of  trickery  and  cunning.^^  An  attorney  will  be  responsible  for 
advising  a  magistrate  to  arrest,  or  to  commit  one  to  prison,  where 
the  magistrate  was  not,  under  the  law,  authorized  to  do  so,^^  or  for 
a  false  and  malicious  arrest  on  a  body  execution ;  ^'  but  an  attor- 
ney who,  under  special  instructions  from  his  client,  unlawfully 
procures  the  issuance  of  an  execution  against  the  body  of  the  judg- 
ment debtor,  is  not  liable  for  damages  to  the  debtor  by  reason  of 
his  confinement  by  the  sheriff  among  convicts  and  criminals.^'  So, 
of  course,  there  is  no  liability  where  the  attorney  acts  in  good 
faith.^3 

South    Carolina. — Wigg    V.    Simon-  ]70,   quoting  Sneedcn   v.  Harris,   109 

ton,  12  Rich.  L.  583.  N.    C.   349,    13   S.   E.  920,    14   L.R.A. 

Texa^. — Kruegel  v.  Murphy,  126  S.  389. 

W.  343.  lePvevill   r.    Pettit,   3   Mete.    (Ky.) 

l2Burnap  v.  Marsh,  13  111.  535.  314:    Pvoth   v.   Shupp,   94  Md.  55,   50 

13Burnap    v.    Marsh,    13    111.    535;  Atl.  430. 

Thompson  v.  Hatch,  4  N.  Bruns.  425.  17  Barker    r.    Braham,    2    W.    Bl. 

14  Green  r.  Elgie,  5  Q.  B.  99,  48  E.  (Eng.)  866;  Crozer  v.  Pilling,  4  B. 
C.  L.  99;  Codrington  r.  Lloyd,  8  Ad.  &  C.  26,  10  E.  C.  L.  271,  6  Dowl.  &  R. 
&  El.  449,  35  E.  C.  L.  433,  2  Jur.  593,  129;  Thompson  v.  Hatch,  4  N.  Bruns. 
3  N.  &  P.  442;  Barker  r.  Braham,  2  425;  Deyo  v.  Van  Valkenburgh,  5 
W.  Bl.  (Eng.)  866,  3  Wils.  C.  PI.  368;  Hill  (X.  Y.)  242;  Sleight  v.  Leaven- 
Thompson  V.  Hatch,  4  N.  Bruns.  425;  worth,  5  Duer  (N.  Y.)  122. 
Burnap  r.  Marsh,  13  111.  535.  18  Baker  v.  Secor,  51  Hun  643  mem., 

15  Dishaw  r.  Wadleigh,  15  App.  Div.  4  N.  Y.  S.  303. 

205,  44  N.  Y.  S.  207,  4  N.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  W  Peck  v.  Chouteau,  91  Mo.  138,  3 


526 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  297 


§  297.  For  Unlawful  Execution  and  Seizure  of  Property. 

—  An  attorney  is  responsible  in  damages  for  loss  occasioned  to 
third  persons  where  he  knowingly  causes  the  issuance  of  an  illegal 
execution,  or  the  direction  of  an  unlawful  levy,^°  or  for  any  other 
tortious  seizure  of  the  property  of  another/  as,  for  instance,  by 
way  of  attachment.'*  It  must  be  remembered,  in  this  connection, 
that  an  attorney  has  implied  authority  to  issue  an  execution  for 


S.  \V.  577,  60  Am.  Rep.  236.    And  see 
infra,  §  302. 

"When  a  court  is  called  upon  to 
adjudicate  upon  doubtful  questions  of 
law,  or  determine  as  to  inferences  to 
be  drawn  from  circumstances  reason- 
ably susceptible  of  different  inter- 
pretations or  meanings,  and  calling 
for  the  exercise  of  the  judicial  func- 
tion in  their  determination,  its  de- 
cision thereon  does  not  render  an 
order  or  process  based  upon  it,  al- 
though afterwards  vacated  or  set 
aside  as  erroneous  or  void,  or  sub- 
ject the  party  procuring  it  to  an  ac- 
tion for  damages  thereby  inflicted. 
Where  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  is 
made  to  depend  upon  the  existence  of 
some  fact  of  which  there  is  an  entire 
absence  of  proof,  it  has  no  authority 
to  act  in  the  premises;  and  if  it, 
nevertheless,  proceeds  and  entertains 
jurisdiction  of  the  proceeding,  all  of 
its  acts  are  void,  and  afford  no  justi- 
fication to  the  parties  instituting 
them  as  against  parties  injuriously 
affected  thereby.  But  if  the  facts 
presented  to  the  court  call  upon  it  for 
the  exercise  of  judgment  and  reason, 
upon  evidence  which  might  in  its 
consideration  affect  diflVrent  minds 
differently,  a  judicial  question  is  pre- 
sented, which,  however  decided,  does 
not  render  either  party  or  the  court 
making  it  liable  for  the  consetnienccs 
of   its  action."     Fisciier   v.   Laiigbein, 


103  N.  Y.  84,  8  N.  E.  251,  affirmmg 
30  Abb.  N.  Cas.  128,  62  How.  Pr. 
238,  13  Abb.  N.  Cas.  10,  65  How.  Pr. 
382. 

20  England. — Rowles  v.  Senior,  8  Q. 
B.  677,  55  E.  C.  L.  677,  10  Jur.  354; 
Codrington  v.  Lloyd,  8  Ad.  &  El.  449, 
35  E.  C.  L.  433,  2  Jur.  593,  3  N.  &  P. 
442 ;  Crozer  v.  Pilling,  4  B.  &  C.  26,  10 
E.  C.  L.  271,  6  Dowl.  &  R.  129;  Bates 
v.  Pilling,  6  B.  &  C.  38,  13  E.  C.  L. 
104,  9  Dowl.  &  R.  44;  Childers  v. 
Wooler,  2  El.  &  El.  287,  105  E.  C.  L. 
287. 

Alabama. — Florence  Cotton  &  Iron 
Co.  V.  Louisville  Banking  Co.,  138  Ala. 
588,  36  So.  456,  100  Am.  St.  Rep.  50. 

Massachusetts. — Train  v.  Gold,  5 
Pick.   380. 

Nebraska. — Peckinbaugh  v.  Quillin, 
12  Neb.  586,  12  N.  W.  104. 

New  York. — Newberry  r.  Lee,  3 
Hill  523;  Ford  v.  Williams,  24  N.  Y. 
359. 

Tc-vas. — Cunningham  v.  Coyle,  2 
Willson  Civ.  Cas.   Ct.  App.  §  424. 

West  Virginia. — Parsons  r.  jMax- 
well,  53  W.  Va.  39,  44  S.  E.  172. 

1  Hardy  v.  Keeler,  56  111.  152;  Ar- 
nold r.  Phillips,  59  111.  App.  213. 

2  Connecticut. — Higgins  v.  Russo,  72 
Conn.  238,  43  Atl.  1050,  77  Am.  St. 
Rep.  307. 

(icorgia. — Williams  v.  Inman,  1  Ga. 
App.  321,  57  S.  E.  1009. 


§  298] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


527 


the  enforcement  of  liis  elienl's  demands,  and  that  he  may  also  in- 
struct the  officer  as  to  the  proper  execution  thereof.'  Therefore, 
an  attorney  who  merely  performs  his  duties,  and  exercises  his 
power,  in  good  faith,  is  not  liable  to  anyone.'*  Thus  he  is  not  to  be 
deemed  a  wrongdoer  merely  because  he  delivered  the  process  to 
the  proper  officer,*  or  because  he  conve^'ed  his  client's  directions  to 
such  officer,^  or  because  the  officer  committed  a  trespass;  '  and  it 
has  been  asserted  that  a  liability  of  this  character  attaches  only 
when  the  attorney  acts  dishonestly,  or  with  some  improper  purpose 
of  his  own  which,  in  law,  amounts  to  malice.*  Where  an  attorney 
gives  the  officer  an  indemnifying  bond  in  the  name  of  his  client, 
it  seems  that  he  cannot  be  held  liable  as  a  trespasser.^ 

§  298.  For  Overpayments.  —  An  attorney  is  responsible  for 
an  overpayment  made  to  him  for  his  client,"  especially  if  it  re- 
mains in  his  hands. ^^  The  rule  that  money  paid  under  a  mistake 
of  law  is  not  recoverable  back,  is  inaj^plicable  as  between  attorney 


Kentuclcy. — Wood  V.  Weir,  5  B. 
Mon.  544. 

Michigan. — Cook  v.  Hopper,  23 
Mich.  511. 

Nebraska. — Peckinbaugli  v.  Quill  in, 
12  Neb.  586,  12  N.  W.  104. 

3  See  supra,  §§  276-280. 

^England. — Sedley  v.  Sutherland,  3 
Esp.  202;  Carrett  v.  Smallpage,  9 
East  330. 

Georgia. — Hunt  v.  Printup,  28  Ga. 
297. 

Illinois. — Hardy  v.  Keeler,  56  111. 
152. 

Iowa. — Rice  i".  Melendy,  41  Iowa 
395;  Dawson  r.  Buford,  70  Iowa  127, 
30  N.  W.  35. 

Michigan. — Cook  v.  Hopper,  23 
Mich.  511. 

New  Jersey. — Sehalk  v.  Kingsley, 
42  X.  J.  L.  33. 

SGaskill  V.  Glass,  1  B.  Mon.  (Ky.) 
252;  Ford  v.  Williams,  13  N.  Y.  577, 
578,  67  Am.  Dec.  83;  Hamnion  v. 
Fisher,  2  Grant  Cas.    (Pa.)    330. 


6  Ford  V.  Williams,  13  X.  Y.  577,  67 
Am.    Dec.    83. 

TSowell  V.  Champion,  6  Ad.  &  El. 
407,  33  E.  C.  L.  92,  2  N.  &  P.  627; 
Seaton  v.  Cordray,  Wright  (Ohio) 
102. 

8  Farmer  v.  Crosby,  43  Minn.  459, 
45  X.  W.  866.  See  also  Wigg  v. 
Simonton,  12  Rich.  L.   (S.  C.)   583. 

9  Ford  f.  Williams,  13  N.  Y.  584,  67 
Am.   Dec.   83. 

^'i  Illinois. — Keithley  v.  Foster,  132 
111.  App.  299. 

Massachusetts. — Fowler  i".  Shearer, 
7  Mass.  23. 

New  York. — Moulton  v.  Bennett,  18 
Wend.  586. 

Tennessee. — Metcalf  f.  Denson,  4 
Baxt.  565. 

Texas.— Croft  v.  Hicks,  26  Tex. 
383. 

n  Keithley  v.  Foster,  132  111.  App. 
299. 


528 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  299 


and  client,  or  as  between  the  attorney  and  the  opposite  party ;  *^  nor 
does  the  rule  that  the  principal  is  alone  liable  for  money  paid  to  his 
agent,  apply. ^^  Payment  over  to  the  client  in  good  faith  will,  it 
seems,  protect  the  attorney,^^  but  the  fact  of  such  payment  must 
be  clearly  established.^* 

§  299.  For  Moneys  Received  on  Account  of  Third  Person. 

—  Where  an  attorney  has  personal  knowledge,  or  has  been  notified, 
of  the  fact  that  money  in  his  possession,  or  to  come  into  his  pos- 
session, is  the  property  of  a  third  person,  it  is  his  duty  to  pay  it 
to  such  person,  and  failing  to  do  so  he  will  be  liable  therefor ;  ^^ 
and  that  an  order  after  reversal  to  restore  money  received  by  an 
attorney  and  paid  over  in  part  was  entered  against  the  party  does 
not  absolve  the  attorney  from  his  liability  to  make  restitution  of 
the  money, ^'  It  has  been  so  held  where  the  attorney  had  knowl- 
edge of  an  assignment  by  his  client  to  a  third  person.'^'  So,  where 
an  attorney  obtains  an  order  for  the  payment  to  him  of  a  fund  in 
court,  he  may  be  charged,  as  well  as  his  client,  with  its  restoration  ; 
his  action  in  obtaining  the  fund  being  a  fraud  on  the  court.^^ 


12Moulton  V.  Bennett,  18  Wend. 
(X.  Y.)  586,  wherein  it. appears  that 
the  amount  due  was  fixed  by  statute. 

iSMetcalf  i\  Denson,  4  Baxt. 
(Tenn.)    565. 

14  McDonald  v.  Napier,  14  Ga.  89; 
Wright  V.  Aldrich,  60  N.  H.  161 ;  Wil- 
merdings  v.  Fowler,  55  N.  Y.  641. 

Compare  Metcalf  /;.  Denson,  4  Baxt. 
(Tenn.)  565.  See  ahso  Murray  v. 
De  Jarnett,  15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  879. 

ISKoithley  r.  Foster,  132  111.  App. 
299;  Wilmerdings  v.  Fowler,  55  N.  Y. 
t;41. 

i^  Mahnmo. — Leach  v.  Williams,  8 
Ala.   7.".!). 

Krnttidq/. — Murray  r.  De  .larnctt, 
15  Ky.  L.  Rep.  879. 

MdssaiJiuscttn. — Xctth'ton  /'.  IJeacli, 
107  Mass.  499. 

M  icliif/an. — Beistle  r.  Mcl'onnell, 
141  Mich.  40:{,  104  X.  W.  729,  12  De- 
troit   L'-'.  N.  505. 


IVew  York. — Newton  r.  Porter,  5 
Lans.  416;  Fowler  v.  Lowenstein,  7 
Lans.  167;  Ward  r.  Webster,  9  Daly 
182;  Sims  r.  Brown,  6  Thomp.  &  C.  5; 
Shotwell  r.  Dixon,  66  App.  Div.  123, 
72  N.  Y.  S.  668;  Mulcahy  v.  Devlin, 
2  N.  Y.  City  Ct.  218. 

South  Carolina. — Sams  v.  Rhett,  2 
McMul.  L.  171.  See  also  Wigg  v. 
Simonton,   12  Rich.  L.  583. 

South  Dakota. — Knott  r.  Kirby,  10 
S.  D.  30,  71  N.  W.  138. 

Vermont. — Bell  /".  Mason,  10  Vt. 
509. 

Wisconsin. — Blizzard  r.  Brown,  152 
Wis.  160,  139  N.  W.  737. 

17  Blizzard  v.  Brown,  152  Wis.  160, 
139  N.  W.  737. 

isCayle  r.   i?.nson.  3  Ala.  234. 

19  111!  /'.  Koliltnann,  52  App.  Div. 
455,  65  N.  Y.  S.  197. 


§§  300,  301] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


529 


§  300.  For  Negligence.  —  In  the  chapter  following  the  liabil- 
ity of  an  attorney  for  negligence  is  fully  considered.^"  It  is  ap- 
parent, however,  that  liability  of  this  character  must  be  confined  to 
the  client.  An  attorney  is  under  no  obligation  to  exercise  reason- 
able care,  skill,  and  diligence  towards  strangers,  as  he  is  with  re- 
spect to  his  client,  and.  therefore,  he  is  not  responsible  to  them  for 
mere  negligence.^  An  attorney's  liability  to  third  persons  because 
of  his  fraud  or  tort  is  not  an  exception  to  this  rule.^ 

§  301.  As  Garnishee.  —  It  is  well  settled  that  an  attorney  at 
law  may  be  summoned  as  the  garnishee  of  funds  of  his  client  in 
his  possession,^  even  though  there  was  no  previous  demand.*  It  is 
immaterial  that  the  client  instructed  his  attorney  to  pay  certain 


20  See  infra,  §§  312-330. 

1  National  Savings  Bank  v.  Ward, 
100  U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  621; 
Buckley  v.  Gray,  110  Cal.  339,  42  Pac. 
900,  52  Am.  St.  Rep.  88,  31  L.R.A. 
862;  Roddy  v.  Missouri  Pac.  R.  Co. 
104  Mo.  234,  15  S.  W.  1112,  24  Am. 
St.  Rep.  333,  12  L.R.A.  746;  Killip  v. 
Empire  Mill  Co.,  2  Nev.  34;  Currey 
V.  Butcher,  37  Ore.  380,  61  Pac.  631. 

2  Responsibility  for  a  fraudulent 
act  is  independent  of  any  contractual 
relation  between  the  guilty  party  and 
the  person  injured;  and  one  commit- 
ting a  malicious  or  tortious  act  to  the 
injury  of  another  is  liable  therefor, 
without  reference  to  any  question  of 
privity  between  himself  and  the 
wronged  one.  Buckley  v.  Gray,  110 
Cal.  339,  42  Pac.  900,  52  Am.  St.  Rep. 
88,  31  L.R.A.  862. 

^Alabama. — Mann  v.  Buford,  3  Ala. 
312,  37  Am.  Dec.  691. 

Georgia. — Tucker  v.  Butts,  6  Ga. 
580;  Carr  v.  Benedict,  48  Ga.  431. 

Louisiana. — Comstock  v.  Paie,  18 
La.  479;  White  v.  Bird,  20  La.  Ann. 
188,  96  Am.  Dec.  393 ;  Daigle  v.  Bird, 
22  La.  Ann.   138. 

Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  L— 34. 


Maine. — Staples  v.  Staples,  4 
Greenl.  532  (foreign  attachments). 
Burnell  v.  Weld,  59  Me.  423;  Abbott 
V.  Stinchfield,  71  Me.  213. 

Massachusetts. — Coburn  r.  Ansart, 
3. Mass.  319;  Thayer  v.  Sherman,  12 
Mass.  441. 

NebrasJca. — Scott  v.  Kirschbaum,  47 
Neb.  331,  66  N.  W.  443. 

New  Hampshire. — Narramore  v. 
Clark,  63  N.  H.  166. 

Pennsylvania. — Riley  v.  Hirst,  2 
Pa.  St.  346 ;  Board  of  Health  r.  Potts, 
2  Pa.  L.  J.  Rep.  52,  3  Pa.  L.  J.  268. 

Compare  Johns  v.  Allen.  5  Har. 
(Del.)  419,  wherein  it  was  said:  "It 
will  lead  to  great  inconvenience,  if 
attorneys  of  this  court,  into  whose 
hands  moneys  are  every  day  paid  for 
the  use  of  their  clients  and  other 
trust  purposes,  are  to  be  compelled  to 
answer  to  attachments  issued  by  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  from  all  parts  of  the 
county,  even  in  conflict  with  the  or- 
ders of,  and  necessary  attendance  up- 
on this  court." 

4  Staples  V.  Staples,  4  Greenl.  (Me.) 
532. 


;30 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


L§  302 


creditors  out  of  the  fund  when  collected;  ^  but  where  an  attorney 
was  ordered  by  his  client  to  pay  funds  to  certain  creditors  who, 
upon  receiving  the  attorney's  obligation  for  the  amounts  due  to 
them,  thereupon  surrendered  their  claims  against  the  client  as 
paid,  it  was  held  that,  the  transaction  having  been  bona  fide,  the 
funds  in  question  became  the  property  of  such  creditors,  and  were 
not  subject  to  attachment  as  the  property  of  the  client.^  An  attor- 
ney's liability  in  this  respect,  however,  is  no  greater  than  that  of 
any  other  garnishee.  The  mere  right  to  collect  a  claim  or  demand 
for  his  client  does  not  make  him  liable;  funds  belonging  to  his 
client  must  actually  be  in  his  hands.' 

§  302.  Effect  of  Acting  in  Good  Faith.  —  It  is  a  general 
rule  that  attorneys  at  law,  in  the  exercise  of  their  proper  func- 
tions as  such,  are  not  liable  for  their  acts  when  performed  in  good 
faith  and  for  the  honest  purpose  of  protecting  the  interests  of  their 
clients.*  Thus  they  may  prosecute  any  action  which  the  client 
believes  to  be  just,^  and  it  is  immaterial  that,  later,  it  proves  to  be 


sSterrett  v.  Miles,  87  Ala.  472,  6 
So.  356. 

6\Yalton  r.  Betlume,  37  Ga.  319; 
Southwestern  Land  Co.  v.  Ellis,  104 
\Yis.  445,  80  X.  W.  749. 

7 /otta.— Smith  v.  Clarke,  9  la.  241. 

Massachusetts. — Wheelock  r.  Tut- 
tle,  10  Cush.  123;  Hancock  v.  Colyer, 
99  Mass.  187,  96  Am.  Dec.  730;  Mar- 
vel V.  Babbitt,  143  Mass.  226,  9  N.  E. 
566. 

Mississippi. — Mayes  V.  Phillips,  60 
!Miss.  547. 

Neic  Havipshire. — Ilowland  v.  Spen- 
cer, 14  N.  H.  580. 

Pennsylvania. — Nesmith  v.  Drum, 
8  Watts  &  S.  9,  42  Am.  Dec.  260. 

Ycrmont. — Hitchcock  v.  Egerton,  8 
Vt.  202;  Ilurlburt  v.  Hicks,  17  Vt. 
193,  44  Am.  Dec.   329. 

^United  States.  —  ('anipbcll  v. 
Brown,  2  W'oodf  349,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
2.355. 


California. — Hathaway  v,  Brady, 
26  Cal.  581. 

Georgia. — Brand  v.  Craig,  84  Ga. 
12,  10  S.  E.  369. 

Iowa. — Lyon  v.  Tevis,  8  Iowa  79. 

Maryland. — Roth  f.  Shupp,  94  Md. 
55,  50  Atl.  430. 

Michigan. — McKinney  r.  Curtiss, 
60  Mich.  611,  619,  27  N.  W.  691. 

9  Illinois. — Burnap  r.  Marsh,  13  111. 
535. 

.^fassachusetts. — Bickncll  v.  Dorion, 
16  Pick.  478. 

Michigan. — Wheaton  v.  Whitte- 
more,  49  Mich.  348,  13  N.  W.  769. 

Missoiiri. — Peck  v.  Chouteau,  91 
Mo.  151,  3  S.  W.  577,  60  Am.  Rep. 
236. 

Neio  York. —  Fisclier  r.  i.angbcin. 
103  N.  Y.  84,  8  N.  E.  251,  13  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  10. 


^03] 


LIABILITY  GENERALLY. 


531 


groundless.^"     So,  also,  attorneys  may  interpose  any  snpposed  de- 
fense in  behalf  of  their  clients." 

Liability  of  Client  to  Third  Persons. 

§  303.  For  Acts  of  Attorney.  — In  the  transaction  of  profes- 
sional nndertakings,  the  attorney  is  the  agent  of  his  client  in  so  far 
as  he  acts  within  the  apparent  scope  of  his  authority, ^'^  and,  there- 
fore, the  client  is  bound  by  the  acts  of  the  attorney  in  the  due  pros- 
ecution of  the  business  for  which  he  was  retained,  and  must  re- 
spond in  damages  to  third  persons  who  have  suffered  loss  or  injury 
in  consequence  thereof.''^  It  is  immaterial  in  this  respect  that  the 
attorney  has  been  false  to  his  trust  and,  for  that  reason,  has  be- 
come personally  liable  to  the  client."  Within  this  rule  the  client 
is  liable  where  the  attorney's  conduct  has  injured  another  by  a 
trespass,^®  or  by  a  false  arrest  or  imprisonment,^®  or  by  an  unlawful 


10  Schalk  V.  Kingsley,  42  N.  J.  L. 
32. 

iiKruegel  v.  Murphy,  (Tex.)  12G 
S.  W.  343. 

12  As  to  an  attorney's  general  au- 
thority, see  supra,  §§  199-214.  As  to 
his  authority  to  appear  for  litigants, 
see  supra,  §§  229-233.  As  to  his  au- 
thority in  the  conduct  of  litigation, 
see  supra,  §§  246-283. 

13  United  States. — Putnam  v.  Day, 
22  Wall.  60,  22  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)  764.  "^ 

Arkansas. — Lawson  v.  Bettison,  12 
Ark.  401. 

Crlorado. — Warner  V.  Gunnison,  2 
Colo.  App.  430,  31  Pac.  238. 

Illinois. — Stenzel  v.  Sims,  25  111. 
App.  538. 

Indiana. — Harvey  v.  Fink,  111  Ind. 
249,  12  N.  E.  396. 

Maryland.  —  African  Methodist 

Bethel  Church  v.  Carmack,  2  Md.  Ch. 
143;  Thornburg  ;;.  Macauley,  2  Md. 
Ch.  425. 

Michigan. — Foster  v.  Wiley,  27 
Mich.  244,  15  Am.  Rep.  185. 


Minnesota. — Johnson  v.  Dun,  75 
Minn.  533,  78  X.  W.  98. 

Missouri. — McDonough  v.  Daly,  3 
Mo.  App.  606. 

ISiew  Hampshire. — Morgan  v.  Joyce, 
66  N".  H.  538,  27  Atl.  225. 

New  Jersey. — Leo  v.  Green,  52  N.  J. 
Ec,.  1,  28  Atl.  904. 

Neio  York. — Eussell  v.  Lane,  1 
Barb.  519;  Guilleaume  v.  Eowe,  63 
How.  Pr.  175. 

North  Carolina. — Greenlee  v.  Mc- 
Dowell, 39  N.  C.  481;  Boing  v.  Ral- 
eigh, etc.,  R.  Co.,  88  X.  C,  62;  Beck 
V.  Bellamy,  93  N.  C.  129. 

Texas. — Chambers  v.  Hodges,  23 
Tex.  104. 

14  Selz  V.  Guthman,  62  111.  App.  624. 

15  Main  Electric  Co.  v.  Cohen,  72 
Misc.  30,  129  N.  Y.  S.  66. 

16  England. — Barker  v.  Braham,  2 
W.  Bl.  866;  Collett  V.  Foster,  2  H.  & 
X.  356. 

Canada. — Wilson  v.  Brecker,  11  U. 
C.  C.  P.  268. 

Massachusetts. — Shattuck     V.    Bill, 


532 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§   303 


attachment,"  or  other  seizure  of  property/*  or  by  an  illegal  execu- 
tion or  levy/^  or  by  wrongfully  obtaining  an  order  of  sale,*^"  or  by 
fraud  ^  in  which  the  other  party  did  not  participate.^  In  the  ab- 
sence of  knowledge  or  ratification  of  the  attorney's  acts,  however, 
his  client's  liability  will,  it  seems,  be  confined  to  actual  damages.' 
Where  the  attorney  acts  without  authority,  or  beyond  the  appar- 
ent scope  of  his  authority,  the  client  cannot  be  held  responsible,* 


]42  Mass.  56,  7  N.  E.  39,  distinguished 
in  Everett  V.  Henderson,  146  ]Mass. 
89,  14  N.  E.  933,  4  Am.  St.  Rep.  284. 

ilissouri. — Brueckner  v.  Frederick, 
109  Mo.  App.  614,  83  S.  W.  775. 

Keio  York. — Guilleaume  f.  Rowe,  94 
N.  Y.  268,  46  Am.  Rep.  141,  affirming 
48  Super.  Ct.  169;  Sleight  v.  Leaven- 
worth, 5  Duer   122. 

Vermont. — Gibson  v.  Holmes,  78 
Vt.  110,  62  Atl.  11,  4  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
451. 

17  Foster  r.  Pitts,  63  Ark.  387,  38 
S.  W.  1114;  Fairbanks  v.  Stanley,  18 
Me.  296;  Brown  v.  Spiegel,  156  Mich. 
138,  120  N.  W.  579,  16  Detroit  Leg.  N. 
43;  Oestrich  v.  Gilbert,  9  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  242;  Poucher  v.  Blanchard,  86  N. 
Y.  256. 

18  Feury  v.  McCormick  Harvesting 
Macii.  Co.,  6  S.  D.  396,  61  N.  W.  162. 

19  Maine. — Jenney  v.  Delesdernier, 
20  Me.  192. 

Michigan. — Foster  V.  Wiley,  27 
Mich.  244,  15  Am.  Itcp.  IS."). 

Missouri. — Howell  v.  Caryl,  50  Mo. 
A)))!.  440. 

\cw  York. — Gorham  v.  Gale,  7  Cow. 
744,  17  Am.  Dee.  549;  Barber  v. 
Dewes,  10  1  Aj.i).  Div.  432,  91  N.  Y.  S. 
1059,  affunicl  1H4  \.  V.  548,  76  N.  E. 
1089;  I'miclicr  r.  l',l;ui<-liard,  86  N.  Y. 
256. 

I'r}ni.'^i/I idiiia — CilliiiL;hiun  V.  CJlark, 
1    I'liihi.   .'>1,   7   l.rg.  Int.  50. 


20  Vaughn  v.  Fisher,  32  ^NIo.  App. 
29. 

1  McDonald  v.  Todd,  1  Grant  Caa. 
(Pa.)   17. 

2  The  general  rule  that  a  client  is 
bound  by  the  acts  of  his  attorney, 
does  not  hold  good  when  the  acts  of 
the  attorney  were  done  in  pursuance 
of  a  fraudulent  confederation  of  the 
attorney  with  the  adverse  party.  Rol- 
ler r.  McGraw,  63  W.  Va.  462,  60  S. 
E.  410,  411. 

3  Foster  c.  Pitts,  63  Ark.  387,  38  S. 
W.  1114. 

4  United  States. — Burnap  v.  Albert, 
Taney  244,  4  Fed.  Cas.  No.  2,170. 

Colorado. — Graham  i'.  Reno,  5  Colo. 
Api).  330,  38  Pac.  835. 

Georgia. — Philadelphia  Fire  Assoc. 
V.  Fleming,  78  Ga.  733,  3  S.  E.  420. 

New  Jersey. — Fidelity  Trust  Co.  v. 
Baker,  60  N.  J.  Eq.  170,  47  Atl.  6. 

New  York. — Guilfoyle  v.  Seeman, 
41  App.  Div.  516,  58  N.  Y.  S.  668; 
Hall  c.  Baker,  66  App.  Div.  131,  72  N. 
Y.  S.  965;  Fischer  i\  Hetlierington, 
11  Misc.  575,  32  X.  Y.  S.  795;  Wieg- 
mann  v.  Morimura,  12  Misc.  37,  33 
N.  Y.  S.  39,  affirming  9  Misc.  715,  29 
X.  Y.  S.  1151;  Welsh  V.  Cochran,  63 
N.  Y.  181,  20  Am.  Rep.  519. 

North  Carolina. — West  v.  A.  P. 
Messick  Grocery  Co.,  138  N.  C.  166, 
50  S.  E.  565. 

Oregon. — Neimitz  v.  Conrad,  22 
Ore.   164,  29  Pac.  548. 


§   304] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


533 


though  the  attorney's  acts  in  so  proceeding  beyond  the  scope  of 
his  authority  may  impose  liability  on  himself.* 

§  304.  For  Statements  in  Pleadings.  —  The  general  rule  in 
this  country  is  that  matter  inserted  in  a  pleading  in  a  civil  action 
is  not  absolutely  but  only  conditionally  or  qualifiedly  privileged  ; 
that  is,  the  alleged  libelous  matter  is  privileged  when,  and  only 
when,  it  is  relevant  or  pertinent  to,  or  connected  with,  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  litigation. ^     A  similar  rule  obtains  in  some  of  the 


Texas. — Galveston,  etc.,  R.  Co.  v. 
Smith,  81  Tex.  479,  17  S.  W.  133. 

5  See  supra,  g§  295-302. 

6  United  Htatcs. — Union  Mut.  L. 
Ins.  Co.  r.  Thomas,  83  Fed.  803,  48  U. 
S.  App.  575,  28  C.  C.  A.  96;  King  v. 
McKissich,  126  Fed.  215. 

District  of  Columbia. — Harlow  v. 
Carroll,  6  App.  Cas.  128. 

Florida. — Myers  r.  Hodges,  53  Fla. 
197,  44  So.  357. 

Geoi-gia. — Conley  v.  Key,  98  Ga. 
115,  25  S.  E.  914;  Wilson  v.  Sullivan, 
81  Ga.  238,  7  S.  E.  274. 

Illinois. — Strauss  /•.  Meyer,  48  111. 
385;  Ash  v.  Zwietusch.  159  111.455,42 
X.  E.  854,  affirming  57  111.  App.  157. 

laioa. — Hawk  v.  Evans,  76  Iowa  593, 
41  N.  W.  368,   14  Am.  St.  Rep.  247. 

Kentucky. — Forbes  r.  Jolmson,  11 
B.  Mon.  48;  Monroe  r.  Davis,  118  Ky. 
806,  82  S.  W.  450. 

Louisiana. — Wallis  r.  New  Orleans, 
etc.,  R.  Co.,  29  La.  Ann.  66 ;  Yinas  v. 
Merchants'  Mut.  Ins.  Co..  33  La.  Ann. 
1265;  Gardemal  v.  McWilliams,  43 
La.  Ann.  454,  9  So.  106,  26  Am.  St. 
Rep.  195;  Randall  v.  Hamilton,  45  La. 
Ann.  1184,  14  So.  73,  22  L.R.A.  649; 
Youree  r.  Hamilton,  45  La.  Ann.  1191, 
14  So.  77;  Wimbish  v.  Hamilton,  47 
La.  Ann.  246,  16  So.  856;  Dunn  v. 
Southern  Ins.  Co.,  116  La.  431,  40  So. 
786.     See  also  Weil  v.  Israel,  42  La. 


Ann.  955,  8  So.  826;  Monroe  V.  H. 
Weston  Lumber  Co.,  49  La.  Ann.  594, 
21   So.  742. 

Massacliusctts.  —  McLaughlin  v. 
Cowley,  127  Mass.  316,  131  Mass.  70. 

Michigan. — See  Hartung  v.  Shaw, 
130  Mich.  177,  89  N.  W.  701. 

Minnesota. — Sherwood  v.  Powell, 
61  Minn.  479,  63  N.  W.  1103,  52  Am. 
St.  Rep.  614,  29  L.R.A.  153. 

Missouri. — Jones  v.  Brownlee,  161 
Mo.  258,  61  S.  W.  795,  53  L.R.A.  445. 

New  York.— Garr  v.  Selden,  4  N.  Y. 
91,  reversing  6  Barb.  416;  Marsh  v. 
Ellsworth,  50  N.  Y.  309,  affirming  36 
How.  Pr.  532,  2  Sweeny  589;  Moore  v. 
Manufacturer's  Nat.  Bank,  123  N.  Y. 
420,  25  N.  E.  1048,  11  L.R.A.  753,  re- 
versing 51  Hun  472,  4  N.  Y.  S.  378; 
Gilbert  r.  People,  1  Den.  41 ;  Dada  v. 
Piper,  .41  Hun  254,  2  N.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
152;  Perzel  v.  Tousey,  52  Super.  Ct. 
79;  Prescott  r.  Tousey,  53  Super.  Ct. 
56. 

Ohio. — Lanning  v.  Christy,  30  Ohio 
St.  115,  27  Am.  Rep.  431. 

Pennsylvania. — Metzler  v.  Romine, 
9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  171,  20  Phila.  247,  47 
Leg.  Int.  484. 

Tennessee. — Ruohs  c.  Backer,  6 
Heisk.  395,  19  Am.  Rep.  598;  Crockett 
V.  McLanalian,  109  Tenn.  517,  72  S. 
W.  950,  61    L.R.A.  914. 

Washington. — Abbott     V.     National 


534: 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§    304 


Canadian  provinces.''  Thus  pertinent  statements  of  fact  have  been 
held  not  to  be  actionable,  although  thej  charge  the  commission  of 
an  offense,®  or  are  false  and  malicious,^  or  otherwise  defama- 
tory,^" or  libelous.^^  But  in  some  jurisdictions  an  allegation  in 
a  pleading  is  not  privileged  unless  founded  upon  probable  cause; 
and,  therefore,  the  privilege  does  not  extend  to  matters  known 
to  be  false,^^  As  to  the  degree  of  relevancy  or  pertinency  neces- 
sary to  bring  alleged  defamatory  matter  within  the  privilege, 
the  courts  favor  a  liberal  rule;  thus  it  has  been  held  that 
the  matter  to  which  the  privilege  does  not  extend  must  be  so 
palpably  wanting  in  relation  to  the  subject-matter  of  the 
controversy  that  no  reasonable  man  can  doubt  its  irrelevancy 
and  impropriety.^^  Much  allowance  should  be  made  for  the  ear- 
nest, though  mistaken,  zeal  of  a  litigant  who  seeks  to  redress  his 
wrongs,  and  for  the  ardent  and  excited  feelings  of  the  fearless, 
conscientious  lawyer,  who  must  necessarily  make  his  client's  cause 
his  own.'^*  While  the  matter  alleged  need  not  be  in  every  case  ma- 
terial to  the  issues  presented  by  the  pleadings,  it  must  be  legiti- 


Banlv  of  Commerce,  20  Wash.  552,  56 
Pac.  376. 

West  Virginia. — Jolinsori  v.  Brown, 
13  W.  Va.  71. 

7  Wilkins  v.  Major,  22  Quebec  Su- 
per. Ct.  264;  Morrison  v.  Western 
Assur.  Co.,  24  Quebec  Super.  Ct.  111. 

8  McGehee  v.  Insurance  Co.  of 
North  America,  112  Fed.  853,  50  C.  C. 
A.  551;  Ash  V.  Zwietusch,  159  111. 
455,  42  N.  E.  854,  affirming  57  111. 
App.  157;  Crockett  r.  McLanalian, 
109  Tenn.  517,  72  S.  W.  950,  61 
L.R.A.    914. 

9  Wilson  V.  Sullivan,  81  Ga.  238,  7 
S.  E.  274;  Hess  v.  McKee,  150  Iowa 
409,  130  X.  W.  375;  Gaines  v.  Mtna. 
Ins.  Co.,  104  Ky.  695,  47  S.  W.  884. 

10  Flynn  v.  Boglarsky,  164  Mich. 
51  :j,  129  \.  W.  674,  32  L.R.A.  (N.S.) 
740,  17  Det.  Leg.  N.  1109;  Bafrgett  v. 
Grady,  154  N.  C.  342,  70  S.  E.  618. 

Jn  Louisiana   it  has  been   held  that 


the  attorney,  and  not  his  client,  is  re- 
sponsible for  defamatory  utterances 
of  the  former  in  the  course  of  the 
trial  of  the  latter's  cause.  Monroe  r. 
H.  Weston  Lumber  Co.,  50  La.  Ann. 
142,  23  So.  247. 

n  Kemper  r.  Fort,  219  Pa.  St.  85, 
12  Ann.  Cas.  1022,  67  Atl.  991,  123 
Am.  St.  Rep.  623,  13  L.R.A.(N.S.) 
820. 

12  Lescale  v.  Joseph  Schwartz  Co., 
116  La.  .302,  40  So.  708;  Charlebois  v. 
Bourassa,  5  Montreal  Super.  Ct.  423; 
Benning  r.  Rielle,  6  Montieal  Q.  B. 
365.  See  also  Gardemal  v.  McW^il- 
liams,  43  La.  Ann.  454,  9  So.  106,  26 
Am.  St.  Rep.  195;  jletzler  v.  Romine, 
9  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  171,  20  Phila.  247,  47 
Leg.   Int.   484. 

18  Harlow  r.  Carroll,  6  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)    139. 

14  Myers  v.  Hodges,  53  Fla.  197,  44 
So.  362. 


304] 


LIABILITY   GENERALLY. 


535 


matelj  related  thereto,  or  so  pertinent  to  the  subject  of  the  contro- 
versy that  it  may  become  the  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  course  of 
the  trial. ^*  The  relevancy  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  controversy, 
of  the  matter  alleged  to  l)e  libelous,  is  a  question  of  law  for  the 
court.''^  But  impertiiiciit  and  scandalous  allegations  are  none  the 
less  actionable  because  of  being  inserted  in  a  party's  pleading  in  a 
pending  cause.^^  Under  the  English  rule  statements  made  by  a 
party  in  his  pleadings  are  absolutely  privileged  and  can  in  no  case 
give  rise  to  an  action  for  defamation ;  ^*  and  this  doctrine  has  been 
followed  to  some  extent  in  this  country.^^  So,  it  has  been  held  that 
where  alleged  libelous  matters  are  authorized  by  statute  as  express- 
ing the  grounds  upon  which  a  judicial  proceeding  may  be  insti- 


ls Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Thorn 
as,  83  Fed.  803,  48  U.  S.  App.  575,  28 
C.  C.  A.  96. 

16  Harlow  v.  Carroll,  6  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  140;  Jones  v.  Brownlee,  161 
Mo.  258,  61  S.  W.  795,  53  L.R.A.  445 ; 
Crockett  V.  McLanalian,  109  Tonn. 
517,  72  S.  W.  950,  61  L.E.A.  914. 

17  Union  Mut.  L.  Ins.  Co.  v.  Thom- 
as, 83  Fed.  803,  48  U.  S.  App.  575,  28 
C.  C.  A.  96 ;  Potter  v.  Troy,  175  Fed. 
128:  Harlow  v.  Carroll,  6  App.  Cas. 
(D.  C.)  128;  Sherwood  v.  Powell,  61 
Minn.  479,  63  N.  W.  1103,  52  Am.  St. 
Rep.  614,  29  L.R.A.  153;  Moore  v. 
Manufacturers'  Nat.  Bank,  123  N.  Y. 
420,  25  N.  E.  1048,  11  L.R.A.  753. 

18  Buckley  r.  Wood,  Cro.  Eliz. 
(Eng.)  230;  Brown  f.  Michel,  Cro. 
Eliz.  (Eng.)  500;  Revis  r.  Smith,  18 
C.  B.  126,  86  E.  C.  L.  126,  2  Jur.  N. 
S.  614,  25  L.  J.  C.  PI.  195,  4  W.  R. 
506 ;  Astley  r.  Younge,  2  Burr.  ( Eng. ) 
807,  2  Ken.  K.  B.  (pt.  1)  536;  Hen- 
derson r.  Broomhead,  4  H.  &  N. 
(Eng.)   569,  5  Jur.  N.  S.  1175,  28  L. 

J.  Exch.  360,  7  W.  R.  492. 

iSRunge  V.  Franklin,  72  Tex.  585. 
10  S.  W.  721,  13  Am.  St.  Rep.  833,  3 
L.R.A.   417. 


In  Maryland,  in  BartU'tt  r.  Clirist- 
hilf,  69  Md.  219,  14  Atl.  518,  the 
court,  after  discussing  the  English 
cases  upon  this  point,  said:  "Tliese 
authorities,  and  others  which  might 
be  cited,  hold  that  statements  made 
in  any  of  the  pleadings  or  proceedings 
in  a  cause  before  a  court  having  juris- 
diction of  the  subject  are  absolutely 
privileged,  even  though  made  mali- 
ciously and  falsely.  This  privilege, 
protecting  against  a  suit  for  libel  or 
slander,  is  founded  upon  what  would 
seem  to  be  a  sound  public  policy 
which  looks  to  the  free  and  unfettered 
administration  of  justice,  though  as 
an  incidental  result  it  may,  in  some 
instances,  afford  an  immunity  to  the 
evil  disposed  and  malignant  slan- 
derer." However,  the  court  said  that 
in  the  case  at  bar  it  was  not  neces- 
sary to  decide  whetlier  the  privilege 
invoked  was  absolute  or  qualified,  as 
the  allegations  complained  of  did 
have  direct  relation  to  the  subject- 
matter  brought  before  the  court  in 
the  petition  in  which  they  were  used, 
and  therefore  were  privileged  within 
either  view  of  the  matter. 


636  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  [§§    o05,  o06 

tuted,  they  are  privileged.^"  Thus  a  statutory  provision  to  the  ef- 
fect that  a  privileged  publication  is  one  made  in  any  legislative  or 
judicial  proceeding  or  in  any  other  official  proceeding  authorized 
by  law,  has  been  construed  to  effect  an  absolute  privilege  in  respect 
to  matters  stated  in  pleadings.^  The  liability  of  the  attorney  in 
this  respect  has  been  considered  heretofore.^ 

For  Costs  and  Expenses. 

§  305.  Liability  for  Costs  Generally.  —  The  mere  fact  that 
an  attorney  has  been  retained  to  conduct  a  case  in  court  will  not, 
of  itself,  create  a  liability  on  his  part  for  the  payment  of  the  costs 
of  suit,  or  any  part  thereof.^  So,  an  agreement  entered  into  be- 
tween an  attorney  and  his  client  whereby  the  attorney  is  to  pay  the 
costs  of  the  litigation  would,  in  most  jurisdictions,  be  considered 
void.'*  Liability  for  costs  has,  however,  been  imposed  upon  attor- 
neys by  statute,  in  certain  cases,  in  several  jurisdictions.^  So  it 
would  seem  that  such  liability  may  be  imposed  by  rule  of  court.* 

§  306.  Because  of  Misconduct  or  Negligence.  —  The  court 
has  inherent  power  to  impose  the  costs  upon  an  attorney  who  has 

20  Wilkins  t;  Hyde,  142  Ind.  260,  41  Mete.    (Ky.)    112;    Richie   r.    Taylor, 

N.  E.  536.     See  also  Hodson  v.  Pare,  44  Hun  627  mem.,  8  N.  Y.   St.  Rep. 

[1899]   1  Q.  B.   (Eng.)   455.  832. 

1  Duncan   v.  Atchison,   etc.,  R.    Co.,  *  See  infra,  §  389. 

72  Fed.  808,  44  U.  S.  App.  427,  19  C.  5  See  the  sections  following  in  this 

C.    A.     202,      (construing     California  subdivision. 

statute)  ;  Hollis  r.  Meux,  69  Cal.  625,  ^  In   Hawaii   a  rule  of   the   circuit 

11  Pac.  248,  58  Am.  Rep.  574;   Ball  v.  court  provides  that  attorneys  shall  be 

Rawles,  93  Cal.  222,  28   Pac.  937,  27  liable  for  costs  of   court    incurred  by 

Am.  St.  Rep.  174.     But  see  Wyatt  v.  tlieir  respective  clients.     But  tlie  rule 

Buell,  47  Cal.  024,  decided  before  the  covers  only  wliat  are  strictly  costs  of 

section   of   the  code  above   cited    was  court.     Tliey  do  not  include  "fees"  or 

enacted.  "disbursements."     Kanahele  V.  Wake- 

2  See  .luprn,  ^S,  75-78.  field,   11    Hawaii  258.     The  fees  of  a 
8  Waili-   /'.    Keefe,  22  L.  R.  Tr.   154;  commissioner  appointed  to  take  testi- 

RoH8  r.  (alder,  3  U.  C.  Q.  15.  180;  mony  are  costs  of  court  within  the 
Blankenship  V.  Cowling,  31  App.  Cas.  meaning  of  tlie  rule.  Waikulani  v. 
(n.   C.)    C2fi;    Chrisnias  r.  Russell,  2       Carter.  12  Hawaii   S3. 


30G] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


;37 


been  guilty  of  misconduct/  even  though  he  appears  for  himself;  ^ 
and  in  some  instances  costs  have  been  imposed  where  counsel  were 
only  guilty  of  negligence,^     This  power  is  said  to  be  necessary  in 


T  Enfjland. — Bennet  v.  Vade,  2  Atk. 
328;  Matter  of  Hogan,  3  Atk.  813; 
Thomas  v.  Vandermoolen,  2  B.  &  Aid. 
197,  20  Rev.  Rep.  404;  Blundell  v. 
Blundell,  5  B.  &  Aid.  533,  7  E.  C.  L. 
181,  1  Dowl.  &  R.  142;  In  re  Bain- 
brigge,  11  Beav.  020;  Upton  V.  Brown, 
20  Ch.  D.  731,  47  L.  T.  N.  S.  289,  30 
W.  R.  817;  Aubrey  v.  Aspinall,  Jac. 
441;  Bromage  v.  Davies,  4  Jur.  N.  S. 
683;  In  re  Gregg,  L.  R.  9  Eq.  137,  39 
L.  J.  Ch.  107,  23  L.  T.  N.  S.  234,  18 
W.  R.  589;  Baker  v.  Loader,  L.  R.  16 
Eq.  49,  42  L.  J.  Ch.  113,  21  W.  R. 
167;  In  re  Dartnall,  [1895]  1  Ch.  474, 
64  L.  J.  Ch.  341,  12  Rep.  237,  72  L.  T. 
N.  S.  404,  43  W.  R.  644;  In  re  Arm- 
strong, [1896]  1  Ch.  530.  65  L.  J.  Ch. 
258,  74  L.  T.  N.  S.  134,  44  W.  R.  281; 
Seldon  v.  Wilde,  [1910]  2  K.  B.  9,  79 
L.  J.  K.  B.  621 ;  Martinson  (;.  Clowes, 
52  L.  T.  X.  S.  706,  33  W.  R.  555;  Ex 
p.  Cuthbert,  1  Madd.  77;  Cockle  v. 
Whiting,  1  Russ.  &  M.  43;  Cook  v. 
Broomhead,  16  Ves.  Jr.  133;  Williams 
r.  Jones,  4  W.  R.  99. 

Ireland. — Knox  v.  O'Brien.  3  Jr.  Eq. 
62. 

Canada. — Brigham  v.  Smith,  2  Ch. 
Chamb.  (Ont.)  462;  Doe  v.  Dobson,  7 
N.  Bruns.  53]. 

United  States. — Bogart  r.  Electri- 
cal Supply  Co.,  23  Blatchf.  552,  27 
Fed.  722. 

Indiana. — Loveland  v.  Jones,  4  Ind. 
184;  Brown  v.  Brown,  4  Ind.  627,  58 
Am.  Dec.  641. 

Kentucky. — Respass  V.  Morton, 
Hardin  226. 

Mississippi. — Topp  v.  Pollard,  24 
Miss.   682. 


Xcir  York. — Britt  r.  Van  Xorden, 
1  Joliiis.  Cas.  390;  Ileyers  r.  Denning, 
Col.  &  C.  Cas.  75;  Britt  v.  Van  Or- 
den.  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  99;  Bradt  /•.  Wal- 
ton, 8  Johns.  298;  Baur  v.  Bet/.,  1 
How.  Pr.  N.  S.  344,  7  Civ.  Proc.  233, 
affirmed  99  X.  Y.  672 ;  Attleboro  Xat. 
Bank  r.  Wendell,  64  Hun  208,  22  Civ. 
Proc.  22.5,  19  X.  Y.  S.  45;  In  re  Kelly, 
59  X.  Y.  595. 

Ohio. — Kerr  v.  Chillicothe  Bank, 
Wright  737. 

Tennessee. — Sharp  v.  Fields,  5  Lea 
326;  Finley  v.  Acme  Kitclien  Furni- 
ture Co.,  119  Tenn.  698,  109  S.  W. 
504. 

8  Matter  of  Kelly,  62  X.  Y.  198. 

9  England. — In  re  Bolton,  9  Beav. 
272,  10  Jur.  22;  Ridley  r.  Tiplady,  20 
Beav.  44,  24  L.  J.  Ch.  207,  1  Jur.  X. 
S.  249,  3  W.  R.  276;  Layton  v.  Wood, 
3  Jur.  124;  In  re  Bradford,  15  Q.  B. 
D.  635,  53  L.  J.  Q.  B.  65,  50  L.  T.  X. 
S.  170,  32  W.  R.  238;  Ellis  ;;.  King.  5 
Madd.  21  ;  Fawkes  v.  Pratt,  1  P.  ^Vms. 
593;  De  Roufigny  v.  Peale,  3  Taunt. 
484,  12  Rev.  Rep.  687;  White  r.  Hill- 
acre,   3   Y.   &   C.  Exch.   278,   8    L.   J. 

.Exch.  65:  Wood  v.  Wood.  4  Russ. 
558;  In  re  Spencer,  39  L.  J.  Ch.  841, 
18  W.  R.  240,  21  L.  T.  X.  S.  80S. 

Ireland. — Taylor  v.  Gorman.  Flan. 
&  Kel.  567,  4  Ir.  Eq.  .550. 

Hauaii. — Palake  v.  Paakaula,  6 
Hawaii  269. 

Kentucky. — Respass  v.  Morton, 
Hardin  234. 

New  York. — Jordan  v.  Xational 
Shoe,  etc..  Bank,  45  Super.  Ct.  423; 
Den  V.  Fen,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  303;  Ex- 
cise   Com'rs    V.    Purdy,    22    How.    Pr. 


538 


LIABILITY    GEXEEALLY. 


[§   306 


order  that  the  court  may  protect  itself  against  gross  violations  of 
decency  and  decorum,  and  is  to  be  exercised  as  a  matter  of  judicial 
discretion. ■^°  Thus  an  attorney  who  inserts  impertinent  or  scanda- 
lous matter  in  pleadings  may  be  ordered  to  pay  the  costs  of  having 
it  expunged.^^  And  by  a  federal  statute  any  attorney  who  need- 
lessly multiplies  the  proceedings  in  any  cause  may  be  charged 
with  the  costs  thus  unnecessarily  made.^^  So,  an  attorney  who  as- 
sumes to  represent  a  party  to  an  action  is  personally  liable  for 
costs  if  it  turns  out  that  he  acted  without  authority,  or  that  his  sup- 
posed client  is  nonexistent.^^     But  costs  will  not  be  imposed  on 


3]  2;  Kane  v.  Van  Vranken,  5  Paige 
62. 

yo7-th  Carolina. — Ex  p.  Bobbins,  63 
X.  C.  300. 

10  Brown  r.  Brown,  4  Ind.  627,  58 
Am.  Dec.  641. 

11  X.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  545.  See 
also  Cook  V.  Rosslyn,  3  Giff.  (Eng.) 
175,  7  Jur.  N.  S.  1070,  5  L.  T.  N.  S. 
133;  Powell  V.  Kane,  2  Edw.  (N.  Y.) 
450;  Powell  v.  Kane,  5  Paige  (N.  Y.) 
265;  Cushman  r.  Brown,  6  Paige  (N. 
Y.)  539;  :McVey  i:  Cantrell,  8  Hun 
(X.  Y.)   522. 

12  The  continuation  of  a  pending 
suit  for  infringement  of  a  patent,  and 
the  taking  of  testimony  therein  by 
complainant  after  he  has  filed  a  pe- 
tition for  a  reissue  on  the  ground  of 
the  invalidity  of  the  patent  in  suit, 
fonstituted  a  "multiplieation  of  pro- 
ceedings,"   so    as    unreasonably    and 

vexatiously  to  increase  the  costs, 
within  the  meaning  of  Rev.  St.  § 
982  (2  Fed.  St.  Ann.  201;  U.  S. 
Coni[).  St.  l!»ni,  p.  70(1),  and  on  a 
(li.smissal  of  tiie  suit  after  the  grant- 
ing of  a  reissue  defendant  is  entitled 
tlnTcunder  to  a  special  allowance 
commi'iisurate  with  the  expense  oc- 
casioned tlier('l)y.  Moliuii  I'icturc 
Patents  (  o.  ;•.  Yankee  i'llni  Co.,  192 
F.mI.   1:{4. 


^^  Eitglaml.  —  Simmons  r.  Liberal 
Opinion  Limited,  [1911]  1  K.  B.  966, 
21  Ann.  Cas.  876;  In  re  Manby,  3  Jur. 
N.  S.  259,  26  L.  J.  Ch.  313;  Pricker 
r.  Van  Grutten,  [1896]  2  Ch.  649; 
Tabbernor  r.  Tabbernor,  2  Keen  679, 
6  L.  J.  Ch.  19;  Pinner  v.  Knights,  6 
Beav.  174.  See  also  Dundas  v.  Du- 
tens,  2  Cox  Ch.  236,  1  Rev.  Rep.  112; 
Wade  r.  Stanley,  1  Jac.  &  W.  6.14. 

Canada. — Meyers  r.  Lake,  1  Grant 
Ch.  (U.  C.)  305;  Smith  v.  Turnbull, 
1  Ont.  Pr.  88;  Shaw  v.  Ormiston,  2 
Out.  Pr.  152;  Weir  v.  Hervey,  1  U.  C. 
Q.  B.  430;  Henderson  r.  IMcMahon, 
12  U.  C.  Q.  B.  288;  Fisher  ;;.  Holden, 
17  r.  C.  C.  P.  395:  Scribner  v.  Par- 
cells,  20  Ont.  5.14.  See  also  Betts  r. 
Chapman,  7  X.  Bruns.  450. 

Illinois. — Anonymous,    11    111.    488. 

New  York. — Cornell  it.  Allen,  Col. 
&  C.  Cas.  75:  Peo[)le  r.  Bradt,  6 
Joiins.  318:  Bradt  r.  Walton,  8  Johns. 
298 ;  American  Ins.  Co.  c.  Oakley,  9 
Paige  496,  38  Am.  Dec.  561;  Balbi  V. 
Duvet,  3  Edw.  418;  Derickson  r.  Mc- 
Cardle,  2  How.  Pr.  196;  Jordan  v. 
Xational  Shoe,  etc.,  Bank,  45  Super. 
Ct.  423;  Deutsch  v.  Webb,  10  Abb.  N. 
Cas.  393:  Attleboro  Xat.  Bank  r. 
Wendell,  64  Hun  208,  22  Civ.  Proc. 
22.1,  19  X.  Y.  S.  45;  Post  r.  Charles- 
worth,  66  Hun  256,  21   X.  Y.  S.  168; 


§  307] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


539 


counsel  merely  because  of  inadvertence/*  or  mistaken  zeal/^  or  a 
fault  resulting  from  inexperience/^  where  there  is  no  deceit  or 
other  improper  conduct.^' 

§  307.  Because  of  Representing  Nonresident  Litigants.  — 

In  some  jurisdictions,  under  statutory  and  court  rule  authority,  a 
liability  for  costs  is  imposed  upon  attorneys  who  represent  nonresi- 
dent litigants.^*  Thus  the  Georgia  code  provides  that  "when  any 
attorney  shall  institute  a  suit  in  any  of  the  courts  of  this  state  for 
any  person  who  resides  out  of  this  state,  such  attorney  shall  be 
liable  to  pay  all  costs  of  the  officers  of  court  in  case  such  suit  shall 
be  dismissed,  or  the  plaintiff  be  cast  in  his  suit.  When  the  plain- 
tiff' and  his  attorney  both  reside  outside  of  the  limits  of  this  state, 


Kelly  r.  New  York  City  R.  Co.,  122 
App.  Div.  467,  106  N.  Y.  S.  894. 

Ohio. — Falor  i\  Beery,  8  Ohio  Dec. 
306.  6  Ohio  N.  P.  290,  7  Ohio  N.  P. 
645. 

Pennsylvania. — See  Paterson  r.  Mc- 
Pherson,  32  Leg.  Int.  320,  1  W.  N.  C. 
454. 

Tennessee. — Sharp  v.  Fields,  5  Lea 
326. 

Virginia. — HoAvard  v.  Rawson,  2 
Leigh  733. 

Compare  Hamilton  v.  Wright,  37 
N.  Y.  502,  where  it  appeared  tliat  an 
attorney  prosecuted  an  action  of 
ejectment  in  the  name  of  the  grantors 
and  grantee  in  a  deed,  against  a  de- 
fendant in  possession,  and  failed,  and 
it  was  held  that  the  grantors  were 
liable  for  costs  notwithstanding  the 
prosecution  was  without  tlieir  knowl- 
edge, the  defendant  having  a  right  to 
presume  a  retainer.  And  see  supra, 
§  230,  as  to  the  presumption  of  re- 
tainer generally. 

In  Thomas  r.  Finlayson,  19  VV.  R. 
(Eng. }  255,  it  was  held  that  the  rule 
that  proceedings  taken  by  a  solicitor, 
without   proper    authority,   would    be 


annulled  with  costs  to  be  paid  by  him, 
did  not  apply  unless  he  was  aware  of 
the  circumstances  which  invalidated 
his  authority,  and  moreover,  that  no- 
tice from  the  other  side  was  not  suf- 
ficient to  fix  him  with  knowledge,  if 
he  had  good  reason  to  suppose  that 
the  facts  stated  in  the  notice  were 
true. 

Where  a  solicitor  employed  hy  one 
of  several  administrators  files  a  bill 
in  the  names  of  all,  he  will  not  be 
compelled  to  pay  costs,  although  the 
name  of  a  co-administratrix  was  in- 
serted without  her  consent.  Dare  r. 
Allen,  2  N.  J.  Eq.  288.  Sec  also 
supra,  §  231,  as  to  the  right  to  enter 
an  appearance  for  coparties  and  nom- 
inal parties. 

14  Hauser  r.  Herzog,  141  App.  Div. 
522,  126  N.  Y.  S.  337. 

15  Bird  r.  Wessels,  119  X.  Y.  S.  329. 

16  In  re  Tacke,  1  Con.  Sur.  119,  3 
N.  Y.  S.  431. 

17  Bird  r.  Wessels,  119  N.  Y.  S.  329. 

18  Cator  c.  Collins,  2  Mo.  App.  225 ; 
Reed  r.  Benzine-ated  Soap  Co.,  72  N. 
J.  Eq.  622,  65  Atl.  1008;  Knowles  V. 
Frawley,  84  Wis.  119,  54  N.  W.  107. 


5-iO 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY, 


[§  307 


the  proper  officers  may  demand  their  full  costs  before  they  shall 
be  bound  to  perforin  any  service  in  any  cause  about  to  be  com- 
menced by  such  nonresident  attorney  or  plaintiff."  ^^  So,  under 
the  Xew  York  code  the  attorney  for  a  nonresident  is  liable  for  the 
defendant's  costs  to  an  amount  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars 
unless  his  client  gives  security  therefor.^"  Under  this  provision 
it  has  been  held  that  it  is  immaterial  that  the  attorney  was  re- 
tained by  a  resident/  or  that  the  action  was  brought  in  the  state 
at  the  request  of  the  defendant,^  or  that  the  plaintiff  was  originally 
represented  by  a  different  attorney,^  or  thjit  the  defendant  was 
guilty  of  laches  in  moving  for  security,*  or  that  a  motion  to  com- 
pel the  plaintiff  to  give  security  for  costs  was  denied,^  or  that  an 
order  to  give  security  was  obtained,  if  it  was  not  complied  with.* 
But  the  plaintift"'s  attorney  is  not  liable  for  the  defendant's  costs 
where  the  plaintiff"  resided  in  the  state  when  the  suit  was  com- 
menced, and  removed  therefrom  while  it  was  pending,'  or  where 


19  Ga.  Code  (1911)  §  5.982.  See 
also  Carmicliael  v.  Pendleton,  Dud. 
(Ga.)  173;  Mackey  v.  Blake.  15  Ga. 
402;  Ross  V.  Harvey,  32  Ga.  388;  Of- 
ficers of  Court  r.  Hines.  33  Ga.  516; 
Berrie  v.  Atkinson,  114  Ga.  708,  40  S. 
E.  708. 

20  X.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §§  3208, 
3272,  3278.  See  also  Jones  v.  Savage, 
10  Wend.  (X.  Y.)  621;  Waring  v. 
Barret,  2  Cow.  (X.  Y.)  400;  People 
r.  Marsh,  3  Cow.  (X.  Y.)  334;  Balbi 
V.  Duvet,  3  Edw.  (X.  Y.)  418;  Cobb 
V.  Robinson,  1  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  235; 
Boyce  V.  Bates,  8  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.) 
495;  Moir  v.  Brown,  9  How.  Pr.  (X. 
Y.)  270:  Vincent  v.  ^•alu^■^bilt.  10 
How.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  324,  1  Aljb.  Pr. 
193;  Willmont  V.  Meserole,  4S  How. 
Pr.  (X.  Y.)  430;  In  re  Levy,  2  Civ. 
Proc.  (X.  Y.)  108;  Renwick  v.  New 
C-entral  Coal  Co.,  55  Super.  Ct.  444, 
14  Civ.  Proc.  114,  14  X.  Y.  St.  Rep. 
758. 

1  .fon<'9  V.  Savage,  10  Wend.  (X. 
Y.)    021. 


2  Renwick  v.  Xew  Central  Coal  Co., 
55  Super.  Ct.  444,  14  Civ.  Proc.  114, 
14  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  758. 

3  Renwick  v.  Xew  Central  Coal  Co., 
55  Super.  Ct.  444,  14  Civ.  Proc.  114, 
14  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  758. 

4  In  re  Levy,  2  Civ.  Proc.  (X.  Y.) 
108.  But  see  Reed  r.  Benzine-ated 
Soap  Co.,  72  X.  J.  Eq.  622,  65  Atl. 
1008. 

5  In  re  Levy,  2  Civ.  Proc.  (X.  Y.) 
108. 

6  Boyce  v.  Bates,  8  How.  Pr.  (X. 
Y.)   495. 

'Frary  v.  Dakin,  8  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 
353;  Long  v.  Hall,  3  Sandf.  (X.  Y.) 
729;  Jackson  v.  Powell,  2  Johns.  Cas. 
(X.  Y.)  67;  Alexander  v.  Carpenter, 
3  Denio  (X.  Y.)  266;  Moir  r.  Brown, 
9  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)   270. 

I'rorccding  in  the  cause  after  the 
client's  removal,  from  the  state,  with- 
out the  filing  of  security,  will  render 
tiie  attorney  liable.  WariiiL!  r.  Bar- 
ret, 2  Cow.  (X.  Y.)  4(10;  People  /;. 
Marsh,  3  Cow.  (N.  Y.)   334;  Gillespie 


;o8] 


LIABILITY   (;kxi:uallv, 


)41 


one  of  several  plaintiffs  resides  within  the  state,  even  thongli  lie  is 
insolvent  and  contined  in  jail  for  del)t,*  or  where  the  client  has 
given  security  for  the  costs;  ^  n(^r  does  the  statute  apply  to  surro- 
gates' courts.^"  Regidations  of  the  chai'acter  under  discussion 
are  in  derogation  of  the  common  law  and  should  be  strictly  con- 
strued ;  ^^  and  it  has  been  held  that  the  power  to  hold  a  solicitor 
for  costs  when  the  complainant  is  a  nonresident  will  only  be  en- 
forced when  the  defendant  moves  to  compel  the  complainant  ti) 
give  security ;  if  the  right  is  waived  as  to  the  complainant,  the 
waiver  inures  to  the  benefit  of  the  solicitor. ^^ 


§  308.  Because  of  Indorsement  of  Writ.  —  In  some  juris- 
dictions, under  statutory  regulation,  an  attorney  renders  himself 
liable  for  certain  costs  by  indorsing  the  original  writ.^^  Where 
the  writ  has  been  indorsed  by  a  law  partnership  the  subsequent 
dissolution  of  the  firm  does  not  remove  their  liability  for  the 
costs,^*  but  the  indorsement  of  a  writ  by  one  of  the  partners  in 
his  own  name  does  not  bind  his  co-partner. ^^  An  attorney  can- 
not relieve  himself  from  the  liability  assumed  by  indorsing  the 


r.  Stanless,  1  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  101; 
Wright  V.  Black,  2  Wend.  (N.  Y.) 
258;  Jones  v.  Savage,  10  Wend.  (N. 
Y.)    621. 

8  Pfister  V.  Gillespie,  2  Johns.  Cas. 
(N.  Y.)   109. 

9  Hubbard  v.  Gicquel,  14  Civ.  Proc. 
15,  15  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  397. 

10  Rasch's  Estate,  28  Civ.  Proc.  98, 
26  Misc.  459,  55  N.  Y.  S.  434. 

UBerrie  v.  Atkinson,  114  Ga.  708, 
40  S.  E.  708. 

12  Reed  v.  Benzine-ated  Soap  Co., 
73  N,  J.  Eq.  622,  65  Atl.  1008. 

1?  United  States. — Anonymous,  2 
Gai:.  101,  1  Fed.  Cas.  No.  44?. 

Maine. — Davis  v.  MtArlhur,  3 
Greenl.  27 ;  How  v.  Codman,  4  Green!. 
79;  Strout  v.  Bradbury,  5  Greenl. 
313;  Skillings  v.  Boyd,  10  Me.  43; 
Philpot  V.  McArthur,  10  Me.  127; 
Harkness  v.  Farley,  11  Me.  491. 


Massachusetts. — Chadwick  r.  Up- 
ton, 3  Pick.  442;  Chapman  IK  Phillips. 
8  Pick.  25;  Clark  v.  Paine,  11  Pick. 
69;  McGee  t:  Barber,  14  Pick.  212; 
Wheeler  r.  Lynde,  1  Allen  402 ;  Rug- 
gles  V.  Ives,  6  Mass.  494;  Middlesex 
Turnpike  Corp.  i:  Tufts,  8  Mass.  266 ; 
Fairbanks  r.  Townsend,  8  Mass.  450; 
Talbot  V.  Whiting,  10  Mass.  359 ;  Mor- 
rill V.  Lamson,  138  Mass.  115. 

New  Uampshire. — Farnum  i'.  Bell, 
3  N.  H.  72;  Pettingill  v.  McGregor,  12 
N.  H.  179;  Woods  v.  Blodgett,  15  N. 
H.  569. 

Neio  York. — See  Bliss  v.  Otis,  1 
D^nio  656. 

14  Johnson  v.  Sprague,  183  Mass. 
102,  66  N.  E.  422. 

15  Davis  V.  Gowen,  17  Me.  387. 


542  LIABILITY    GENERALLY.  [§    '509 

writ  by  showing  that,  in  so  doing,  he  violated  a  rule  of  court. ^* 
Where  an  attorney's  name  has  been  nnanthorizedly  indorsed  on 
the  writ  b}'  another,  the  attorney,  by  knowingly  prosecuting  the 
action  to  trial  without  objection,  will  be  considered  as  having 
ratified  the  indorsement,  and,  therefore,  liable  for  the  costs.'''  Tn 
order  to  recover  against  the  attorney  the  facts  must  bring  the  lia- 
bility within  the  language  of  the  statute ;  thus  in  some  instances 
liability  depends  on  the  amount  of  recovery.^^  So,  it  has  been 
held  that  the  signature  of  an  attorney  on  a  writ  under  directions 
to  attach  does  not  make  him  an  indorser.^^ 

§  309.  Because  of  Beneficial  Interest.  —  A  I^ew  York  stat- 
ute provided  that  where  an  action  is  brought,  in  the  name  of 
another,  by  a  transferee  of  the  cause  of  action,  or  by  any  other 
person  who  is  beneficially  interested  therein,  or  where,  after  the 
commencement  of  an  action,  the  cause  of  action  becomes,  by  trans- 
fer or  otherwise,  the  property  of  a  person  not  a  party  to  the 
action,  the  transferee,  or  other  person  so  interested,  is  liable  for 
costs,  in  the  like  cases,  and  to  the  same  extent,  as  if  he  were  the 
plaintiff;  and,  where  costs  are  awarded  against  the  plaintiff,  the 
court  may,  by  order,  direct  the  person  so  liable  to  pay  them.  Ex- 
cept in  a  case  where  he  could  not  have  been  lawfully  directed  to 
pay  costs,  personally,  his  disobedience  of  the  order  is  a  contempt 
of  court.  But  this  statute  does  not  apply  to  a  case  where  the 
person  so  beneficially  interested  is  the  attorney  or  counsel  for  the 
plaintiff,  if  his  only  beneficial  interest  consists  of  a  right  to  a 
portion  of  the  sum  or  property  recovered,  as  compensation  for  his 
services  in  the  action.^"  So,  in  the  absence  of  statute,  an  attorney 
whose  sole  interest  consists  of  an  agreement  whereby  he  is  to  be 
compensated  out  of  the  recovery,  if  any,  in  the  suit,  has  not  such  a 
beneficial  interest  as  will  warrant  the  imposition  of  costs  upon 

16  Johnson    r.    Sprague,    183    Mass.  also   Bliss   v.  Otis,    1    Dciiio    (X.   Y.) 

]02,  G6  N.  E.  422.  050;  Eisner  v.  Ilauiol,  (i  Hun   (N.  Y.) 

njiookiT  f.  Stinelidcld,  47  Mo.  340.  234;  Banta  r.  Nau.ditoii.  44  Iliin  622 

18  Kairltanks   t.   Townscnd.   8    Mass.  mom.,  7  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  384;  Wolcott 

4.")0.  V.  Holcomb,   31   N.  Y.  125;    Vooilieos 

iSfJilmore  v.  Crosby,  76  Me.  599.  v.  McCartney,  51  N.  Y.  387;  Green  r. 

20  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  3247.     See  Lee,  8  N.  Y.  Wkly.  Dig.  131. 


310] 


LIABILITY    GENEEALLT. 


54J 


liim.^  Of  course,  where  an  attorney  is  the  real  party  in  interest, 
the  fact  that  his  interest  does  not  appear  on  the  record  would  not 
relieve  him  from  ]ia])ility  for  the  costs.^ 

§  310.  Fees  and  Expenses.  —  It  has  been  stated  heretofore 
that  an  attorney  b^^  virtue  of  his  retainer  has  implied  authority 
to  incur  on  behalf  of  his  client  such  expenses  as  are  necessary  for 
the  proper  and  orderly  conduct  of  the  litigation.^  The  general 
rule  is,  in  accordance  with  this  view,  that  expense  so  incurred 
must  be  paid  by  the  client,  and  that  the  attorney  is  not  liable 
therefor.*  Thus  an  attorney  is  not  personally  liable  for  expenses 
incurred,  in  the  interest  of  his  client,  for  court  fees,^  or  for  those 
of  referees,^  court  officers,'  examiners,®  connnissioners,^  wit- 
nesses,^" or  for  the  service  of  writs  and  papers."     So  an  attorney 


1  Stevens  V.  Sheriff,  76  Kan.  124,  90 
Pac.  799,  11  L.R.A.(N.S.)  1153;  Gulf, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Knott,  14  Tex.  Civ.  App. 
158,  36  S.  W.  491. 

2  Kelly  V.  New  York  City  R.  Co., 
122  App.  Div.  467,  106  N.  Y.  S.  894. 
See  also  Eisner  v.  Hamel,  6  Hun  (N. 
Y.)  234. 

3  See  supra,  §  252. 

4  England. — Merriman  v.  Newman, 
20  W.  R.  369. 

Iowa. — Doughty  v.  Paige,  48  la. 
483. 

Massachusetts. — Tarbell  v.  Dickin- 
son, 3  Cush.  345. 

Michigan. — Preston  v.  Preston,  1 
Doug.  292. 

Neio  York. — Argus  Co.  v.  Hotch- 
kiss,  121  App.  Div.  378,  107  N.  Y.  S. 
138. 

Vermont. — Sargcant  t\  Pettibone,  1 
Aikens  355;  Crocker  V.  Hutchinson, 
2  D.  Chip.  117;  Wires  v.  Briggs,  5 
Vt.  101,  26  Am.  Dec.  284;  Russell  v. 
Ferguson,  77  Vt.  433,  60  Atl.  802. 

5  Russell  V.  Ferguson,  77  Vt.  433, 
60  Atl.  802. 

6  Netc  York. — Howell  v.  Kinney,  1 


How.  Pr.  105;  Dinkel  r.  "Wehle,  63 
How.  Pr.  298;  Judson  v.  Gray,  11  N. 
Y.  408;  Geib  V.  Topping,  83  N.  Y.  47: 
In  re  Malcom,  129  App.  Div.  226,  113 
N.  Y.  S.  666,  reversing  60  Misc.  324, 
113  N.  Y.  S.  255. 

7  Preston  v.  Preston,  1  Doug. 
(Mich.)  292;  Bonynge  v.  Waterbury, 
12  Hun  (N.  Y.)  534;  Sheridan  v. 
Genet,  12  Hun   (N.  Y.)    660. 

8  Watertown  r.  Cowen,  5  Paige  (N. 
Y.)  510;  Curtis  v.  Engle,  4  Edw. 
(N.  Y.)    117. 

9  Lamoreux  v.  IMorris,  4  How.  Pr. 
(N.   Y.)    245. 

10  Robins  V.  Bridge,  3  M.  &  W. 
(Eng.)  114,  6  Dowl.  140,  M.  &  H. 
357;  Fendall  V.  Noakes,  3  Jur.  (Eng.) 
726,  7  Scott  647;  Lee  v.  Everest,  2 
H.  &  N.  (Eng.)  285,  26  L.  J.  Exch. 
334;  Sargeant  v.  Pettibone,  1  Aiken 
(Vt.)  355;  Crooker  t\  Hutchinson,  2 
D.  Chip.   (Vt.)   117. 

11  Doughty  V.  Paige,  48  la.  483. 
Laws  of  New  Hampshire  1899,  cli. 

20,  sec.  1  (Pub.  Stat.  1901,  p.  686), 
rendering  obsolete  Eastman  v.  Coos 
Bank,  1  N.  H.  23 ;  Towle  v.  Hatch,  43 


yU 


LIABILITY    GEXEEALLY. 


[§  310 


will  not  be  responsible  for  the  cost  of  printing  briefs  for  his 
client/^  or  for  the  services  of  a  stenographer,"  or  an  aeeonntant.^* 
But  the  presumption  that  an  attorney  in  incurring  expense  is 
acting  for  his  client,  mav  be  rebutted  by  showing  facts  and  cir- 
cumstances from  which  it  may  fairly  be  inferred  that  the  credit 
was  extended  to  the  attorney  and  not  to  the  client;^*  as,  for  in- 
stance, where  the  attorney  fails  to  disclose  the  party  for  whom 
he  is  acting;  ^^  but  the  fact  that  the  indebtedness  was  charged  to 
the  attorney  is  not  conclusive.^'  So,  an  attorney  may  render 
himself  liable  for  debts  contracted  by  him  in  the  interest  of  his 
client  by  agreeing  to  be  responsible  therefor.^^  In  some  juris- 
dictions, however,  an  attorney  is  held  to  be  liable  for  the  fees  of 
court  ofHcers  who  perform  services  at  his  request  ;^^  thus  counsel 


X.  H.  273;  Joyce  v.  Morgan,  66  X.  H. 
487,  23  Atl.  78. 

12  Argus  Co.  V.  Hotchkiss,  121  App. 
Div.  378,  107  N.  Y.  S.  138;  Living- 
ston-Middleditcli  Co.  r.  New  York 
College  of  Dentistry,  30  Misc.  831,  61 
X.  Y.  S.  918,  affirmed  31  Misc.  259,  7 
X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  398,  64  X.  Y.  S.  140; 
Tyrrel  v.  Hamnierstein,  33  ^lisc.  505, 
8  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  432,  67  X.  Y.  S. 
717.  Contra  Trimmier  v.  Thomson, 
41  S.  C.  125,  19  S.  E.  291. 

13  Sheridan  v.  Genet,  12  Hun  (X. 
Y.)  660;  Bonynge  v.  Field.  44  Super. 
Ct.  (X.  Y.)  581;  Bonynge  r.  Field, 
81  X.  Y.  159. 

Where  an  official  reporter  brought 
suit  against  a  client  for  services  in 
preparing  a  bill  of  exceptions,  under  a 
mistaken  belief  as  to  the  law  he  could 
not  recover  from  the  attorney  who  di- 
rected the  preparation  of  the  bill  of 
exceptions,  his  expenses  in  unsuccess- 
fully prosfcuting  the  suit  against  the 
client.  Bhionifield  r.  Xcvitt,  (Colo.) 
131   Pac.  HOI. 

i4Covell  r.  Hart.  14  llun  (X.  Y.) 
252. 

15  Livingston     Midincditcli     Co.     V. 


Xew  York  College  of  Dentistry,  30 
Misc.  831,  61  X.  Y.  S.  918,  affirmed  31 
Misc.  259,  7  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  398,  64 
X.  Y.  S.  140.  See  also  Wires  r. 
Briggs,  5  Vt.  101,  26  Am.  Dec.  284. 

16  Good  V.  Rumsey,  50  App.  Div. 
280,  63  X.  Y.  S.  981. 

In  Gray  v.  Journal  of  Finance  Pub. 
Co.,  2  Misc.  260,  21  X.  Y.  S.  967,  it 
was  held  that  where  an  attorney,  in 
entering  into  a  contract  with  another, 
acts  as  principal,  or  as  the  agent  of 
an  undisclosed  principal,  he  may  sue 
for  a  violation  of  the  contract. 

17  George  Hornstein  Co.  v.  Crandall, 
156  HI.  App.  520. 

18  Maddox  r.  Cranch,  4  Har.  &  McH. 
(Md.)  343;  Cameron  Sun  f.  McAnaw, 
72  Mo.  App.  196;  Dinkel  V.  Wehle, 
11  Abb.  X.  Cas.  (X.  Y.)  124;  Pessano 
r.  Eyre,  13  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  157. 

19  Maine. — Tilton  v.  Wriglit,  74  Me. 
214,  43  Am.  Kep.  578. 

yew  York. — Reilly  v.  Tullis,  10 
Daly  283;  Reilly  r.  Flynn,  10  Daly 
462. 

I'cnnsjilvama. — ]\Ioore  v.  Porter,  13 
Serg.  &  R.  100;  Cone  v.  Donaldson,  47 
Pa.  St.   363. 


311] 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


515 


have,  in  several  cases,  beeu  held  responsible  for  service  fees,^° 
and  poundage.^  The  liability  so  imposed  on  an  attorney  is  simi- 
lar to  that  of  a  guarantor,''  and  it  cannot,  in  the  first  instance  at 
least,  be  enforced  sunnnarily.^  So  an  attorney  will,  in  all  juris- 
dictions, be  responsible  to  an  officer  whose  fees  he  has  collecteil, 
whether  as  part  of  the  costs  or  otherwise.* 

§  311.  Enforcement  of  Liability. — An  attorney's  liability 
for  costs  is  usually  enforced  by  applying  to  the  trial  court  for  an 
order  to  show  cause  why  the  costs  shall  not  be  paid  by  the  attor- 
ney.^ Should  the  order  be  granted,  it  may  be  enforced  by  attach- 
ment,^ proceedings  for  contempt,'  or  suspension.^     But  it  seems 


Hoiith  CuroUna. — Benson  v.  Whit- 
field, 4  McCord  L.  149. 

20  England. — Brewer  r.  Jones,  10 
Exch.  655,  1  Jur.  N.  S.  240;  Lang- 
ridge  V.  Lynch,  34  L.  T.  N.  S.  605. 

Connecticut. — Heath  v.  Bates,  49 
Conn.  342,  44  Am.  Rep.  234. 

Maine. — Tilton  v.  Wright,  74  Me. 
214,  43  Am.  Rep.  578. 

Massachusetts. — Tarbell  v.  Dickin- 
son,  3   Ciisli.  345. 

Xeic  York. — Adams  r.  Hoplcins,  5 
Johns.  252 ;  Ousterhout  r.  Day,  9 
Johns.  114;  Birkbeck  i.  Stafford,  23 
How.  Pr.  236.  14  Abb.  Pr.  285;  Jud- 
son  r.  Gray,  11  X.  Y.  408;  Campbell 
r.  Cothran,  56  X.  Y.  279,  affirming  Go 
Barb.  534,  1  Thomp.  &  C.  70;  Geib  v. 
Topping,  83  X".  Y.  46;  Van  Kirk  r. 
Sedgwick,  87  X.  Y.  265,  reversing  23 
Hun  37 ;  Gadski-Tauscher  r.  Graff,  44 
Misc.  418,  89  X.  Y.  S.  1019.  See  also 
Jackson  r.  Anderson.  4  Wend.  474. 

1  Adams  v.  Hopkins,  5  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  252:  Jackson  v.  Anderson,  4 
Wend.  (X.  Y.)  474;  Campbell  v.  Coth- 
ran, 65  Barb.  534,  1  Thomp.  &  C.  70, 
affirmed  in  56  X'.  Y.  279;  Gadski- 
Tauscher  r.  Graff,  44  Misc.  418.  34 
Civ.  Proc.  25,  89  X.  Y.  S.  1019.  See 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 35. 


also    Tarbell     r.    Dickinson,    3    Cush. 
(Mass.)    345. 

Poundage  fees  are  not  allowable  for 
an  arrest  and  imprisonment  under  a 
body  execution.  Bowe  r.  Campbell, 
63  How.  Pr.  (X'.  Y.)  167,  2  Civ.  Proc. 
232. 

2  Tarbell  v.  Dickinson,  3  Cusli. 
(Mass.)   350. 

3  Lamoreux  r.  Morris,  4  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)    245. 

4  Knott  r.  Kirby,  10  S.  D.  30,  71  X. 
W.  138. 

5  Matter  of  Levy,  10  Daly  (X.  Y.) 
391 ;  Bronson  v.  Freeman.  8  How.  Pr. 
(X.  Y.)  492;  Matter  of  Levy,  2  Civ. 
Proc.  (X.  Y.)  108;  Struffman  r.  Mul- 
ler,  74  X.  Y.  594. 

6  Bogart  V.  Electrical  Supply  Co., 
27  Fed.  722;  Anonymous,  2  Cow.  (X. 
Y.)   589. 

7  Chrismas  r.  Russell,  2  Mete. 
(Ky.)  112.  See  also  Ex  p.  Bobbins, 
63  X^.  C.  309. 

Fine. — Costs  upon  a  motion  in  a 
special  proceeding  are  discretionary ; 
but  they  cannot  be  imposed  upon  tlie 
attorney  except  in  the  form  of  a  fine. 
Bird  V.  Wossels.  119  X.  Y.  S    329. 

8  Anonvmous,  2  Cow.    ( X'^.  Y. )    589. 


546 


LIABILITY    GENERALLY. 


[§  311 


that  the  summary  manner  of  enforcing  payment  cannot  be  exer- 
cised against  an  attorney  who  has  become  surety  for  the  litigant,® 
and  this  is  especially  true  where  such  surety  was  not  the  attorney 
of  record.^" 


9  In  Hubbard  v.  Gicquel,  14  Civ. 
Proc.  15,  15  X.  Y.  St.  Rep.  397,  it  was 
lield  that  the  summary  remedy  al- 
lowed against  the  attorney  of  a  non- 
resident plaintiff  for  the  collection  of 
costs  cannot  be  applied,  where  a  l>ond 
for    costs    was   signed   by    the   attor- 


ney, and  subsequenth'  approved ;  for 
though  the  bond  is  irregular,  it  is  not 
void.  See  also  Lamoreux  r.  Morris, 
4  How.  Pr.   (N.  Y.)   245. 

10  Willmont    v.    Meserole,    48   How. 
Pr.    (N.  Y.)    430. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

LIABILITY  FOR  NEGLIGENCE. 

hi  General. 

§  312.  As  Dependent  on  Attorney's  Skill,  Care,  and  Prudence. 

313.  Attorney  Not  Guarantor  or  Insurer. 

314.  Ignorance  of  Law. 

315.  As  to  Giving  Advice. 

316.  Investments  and  Securities. 

317.  In   Preparing  and   Recording  Written   Instruments. 

318.  Attorney's  Negligence  Imputed  to  Client. 

In  Conducting  Litigation. 

319.  In  General. 

320.  Preparation  and  Filing  of  Pleadings. 

321.  Trial. 

322.  With  Respect  to  Judgments. 

323.  As  to  Proceedings   for  the  Enforcement   of  Judgments. 

324.  As  to  Attachments. 

325.  Proceedings  for  Review. 

In   Collecting   Claims. 

326.  Failure  to  Exercise  Due  Care,  Skill,  and  Diligence. 

327.  Failure  Properly  to  Care  for  Fund. 

328.  Failure  to  Pay  Over  Proceeds. 

329.  Failing  to  Follow  Instructions. 

330.  Effect  of  Authorizing  Attorney  to  Exercise  Discretion. 

In  General. 

§  312.  As  Dependent  on  Attorney's  Skill,  Care,  and  Pru- 
dence. —  The  general  rule  is  that  an  attorney  is  bonnd  to  nse  a 
reasonable  degree  of  skill,  care,  and  prudence  in  the  performance 
of  his  professional  duties ;  ^  and,  failing  in  this  respect,  he  will 

1  /?H,r;/a«rf.— Godefroy  v.  Dalton.  6  512;  Parker  r.  Rolls,  14  C.  B.  691,  78 
Bing.  460,  19  E.  C.  L.  132;  Sliilcock  E.  C.  L.  691  :  Hart  V.  Frame,  6  CL  & 
V.  plissman,  7  C.  &  P.  289,  32  E.  C.  L.       F.   193.  3  Jur.  547. 

547 


548 


LIABILITY    FOR    IS^EGLIGE^'CE. 


[§  312 


be  responsible  to  Lis  client  for  any  injury  sustained  by  reason  of 
such  neglect.^     It  is  immaterial,  in  such  case,  that  the  attorney's 


Georgia. — Cox  r.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
144,  50  Am.  Dec.  386;  O'Barr  r.  Alex- 
ander, 37  Ga.  195. 

Illinois. — Stevens  r.  Walker,  55  111. 
151. 

Indiana. — Kepler  v.  Jessup,  11  Ind. 
App.  241,  37  N.  E.  655,  38  X.  E.  826. 

Kansas. — Haverty  v.  Haverty,  35 
Kan.  438,  11  Pac.  364. 

Kentucky. — Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc. 
V.  Dueker,  111  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  671, 
23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1073. 

Louisiana. — Thompson  r.  Lobdell, 
7  Rob.  369. 

Massachusetts. — Caverly  v.  Mc- 
Owen,  123  Mass.  574. 

Micldgan. — Eggleston  v.  Boardman, 
37  Mich.  14. 

Pennsylvania. — Enterline  v.  ^Miller, 
27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  463. 

Rhode  Island. — Holmes  V.  Peck,  1 
R.  I.  242. 

Texas. — Patterson  v.  Frazer,  79  S. 
W.  1077. 

Washington. — Isham  v.  Parker,  3 
Wash.  755,  29  Pac.  835. 

Wiseo7isin. — Malone  v.  Gcrth,  100 
Wis.  166,  75  N.  W.  972. 

Where  a  layman  induces  another  to 
deal  tcith  him  by  falsely  representing 
that  he  is  a  lawyer,  he  is  held  to  just 
as  strict  a  liability  to  the  client  as  if 
he  were  in  fact  an  attorney.  Miller 
f.  Whelan,  158  111.  544,  42  N.  E.  59; 
Foulks  r.  Falls,  91  Ind.  315.  Compare 
Wakeman  r.  llazleton,  3  Barb.  Ch. 
(N.  Y.)   148. 

2  United  Htates. — National  Sav. 
Bank  r.  Ward.  100  U.  S.  195,  25  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  621  (a  leading  case); 
vSpangler  i:  Sellers,  5  Fed.  882.  See 
also  Ex  p.  Giberson,  4  Cranch  (('.  (\) 
503,   10  Fed.  C'as.  No.  5,388;   WCimcr 


r.  Sloane,  6  McLean  259,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,363;  Marsh  v.  Whitmore,  21 
Wall.  178,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  482, 
affirming  1  Hask.  391,  16  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  9,122. 

Alabama. — Walker  v.  Goodman,  21 
Ala.  647;  Burkham  v.  Daniel,  56  Ala. 
610;  Teague  V.  Corbitt,  57  Ala.  543. 

Ai'kansas. — Pennington  v.  Yell,  11 
x\rk.  227,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

California. — Gambert  r.  Hart,  44 
Cal.  542. 

Georgia. — Cox  v.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
144,  50  Am.  Dec.  386;  O'Barr  V.  Alex- 
ander, 37  Ga.   195. 

Illinois. — Stevens  v.  Walker,  55  111. 
151;  Walker  r.  Stevens,  79  111.  393. 

Indiana. — Reilly  v.  Cavanaugh,  29 
Ind.  435 ;  Jones  V.  White,  90  Ind.  255 ; 
Kepler  r.  Jessup,  11  Ind.  App.  241,  37 
N.  E.  655,  38  N.  E.  826. 

Louisiana. — Thompson  v.  Lobdell, 
7  Rob.  369. 

Maine. — Wilson  V.  Russ,  20  Me. 
421. 

Maryland. — Cochrane  r.  Little,  71 
Md.  328,  18  Atl.  698;  Watson  v.  Cal- 
vert Bldg.  etc.,  Assoc,  91  Md.  25,  45 
Atl.  879. 

Massachusetts. — Gilbert  v.  Wil- 
liams, 8  Mass.  51,  5  Am.  Dec.  77. 

Michigan. — Eggleston  v.  Boardman, 
37  Mich.  14. 

Mississippi. — Fitch  r.  Scott,  3  How. 
314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86;  Grayson  r.  Wilk- 
inson, 5  Smedes  &  !M.  268. 

Alissouri. — National  Hollow  Brake 
Beam  Co.  r.  Bakewell.  224  :\lo.  203, 
123  S.  W.  561. 

Xebraska. — Ueumping  r.  Wliarton, 
56  Neb.  536,  76  N.  W.  1076. 

Xf'ir  York. — Taquiss  r.  Hagner,  72 
X.    v.   ()().");    \()ii   Walilioll'cn   /•.   New- 


I 


§  ^12] 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


549 


fees  have  not  been  paid,^  or  that  liis  services  were  rendered 
gratuitously.*  The  learning,  skill  and  ability  required  in  any 
particular  instance  must,  of  course,  have  reference  to  the  char- 
acter of  the  business  for  which  the  attorney  was  retained,*  and 
need  not  be  greater  than  that  of  the  average  practitioner.^     Ex- 


combe,  10  Hun  240;  Cliilds  V.  Corn- 
stock,  69  App.  Div.  160,  74  N.  Y.  S. 
643;  Flynn  v.  Judge,  149  App.  Div. 
278,  133  N.  Y.  S.  794. 

0/(to. — Harter  v.  Morris,  18  Ohio 
St.  492. 

Pennsylvania. — Riddle  v.  Poorman, 
3  Pen.  &  W.  224;  McWilliaras  V.  Hop- 
kins, 4  Rawle  382;  Lynch  v.  Com.  16 
Serg.  &  R.  368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582;  Cox 
V.  Livingston,  2  Watts  &  S.  103,  37 
Am.  Dec.  486;  Young  v.  Lindsay,  3 
W.  N.  C.  169;  Watson  v.  Muirliead, 
57  Pa.  St.  167,  98  Am.  Dec.  213;  En- 
terline  v.  Miller,  27  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
463. 

Rhode  Island. — Holmes  v.  Peck,  1 
R.  L  242. 

Tennessee. — Gaar  v.  Hughes,  35  S. 
W.  1092. 

Teooas. — Fox  v.  Jones,  4  Willson 
Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.  §  29,  14  S.  W. 
1007;  Patterson  v.  Frazer,  100  Tex. 
103,  94  S.  W.  324,  reversing  93  S.  W. 
146. 

Washington. — Isham  v.  Parker,  3 
W^ash.  755,  29  Pac.  835. 

3  Eccles  V.  Stephenson,  3  Bibb 
(Ky.)   517. 

Compare  Cavillaud  v.  Yale,  3  Cal. 
108,  58  Am.  Dec.  388,  wherein  it  was 
said:  "In  declaring  against  an  at- 
torney for  negligence,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  aver  generally  that  he  was  re- 
tained, without  stating  specially  that 
a  retaining  fee  was  paid.  But  the 
averment  here  goes  further,  and 
shows  that  the  employment  or  engage- 
ment of  the  defendant  was  in  consid- 


eration of  certain  reasonable  fees  and 
rewards  to  be  paid  him.  No  future 
time  is  stated  as  having  been  agreed 
upon  for  the  payment  of  the  fee,  and 
the  inference  must  be,  that  it  was  to 
be  paid  before  the  services  were  ren- 
dered, because  an  attorney  is  always 
entitled  to  his  retaining  fee  in  ad- 
vance, unless  he  stipulates  to  the  con- 
trary. Therefore,  the  declaration 
averring  that  the  fee  was  to  be  paid, 
should  also  have  averred  tlie  payment, 
as  distinctly  as  the  performance  of 
any  other  condition  precedent  is 
necessary  to  be  stated." 

4Lawall  V.  Groman,  180  Pa.  St. 
532,  37  Atl.  98,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  662; 
Stephens  v.  White,  2  Wash.  (Va.> 
203. 

5  Cox  V.  Sullivan,  7  Ga.  144,  50  Am. 
Dec.  386. 

6  Spangler  v  Sellers,  5  Fed.  882 ; 
Gambert  v.  Hart,  44  Cal.  542;  Bab- 
bitt V.  Bumpus,  73  Mich.  331,  41  N. 
W.  417,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  585. 

Rule  Same  as  That  Obtaining  in 
Other  Professional  Relatione. — Attor- 
neys are  held  to  the  same  rule  of  lia- 
bility for  want  of  professional  skill 
and  diligence  in  practice,  and  for  er- 
roneous or  negligent  advice  to  those 
who  employ  them,  as  are  physicians, 
surgeons  and  other  persons  who  hold 
themselves  out  to  the  world  as  pos- 
sessing skill  and  qualification  in  their 
respective  trades  or  professions.  Citi- 
zens' Loan,  etc.,  Assoc,  v.  Friedley, 
123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E.  1075,  18  Am. 
St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A.  669. 


>oO 


LIABILITY     FOK    NLGLIGEXCE. 


[§  312 


traordinarj  care  is  not  required  in  the  absence  of  a  special  con- 
tract therefor,'  and  some  cases  hold  that  an  attorney  is  liable  only 
for  gross  negligence  or  gross  ignorance  in  the  performance  of  his 
professional  duties,*  but  these  have  been  criticised  as  being  in 
conflict  with  the  more  recent  American   decisions.^     iSTegligence 


7  Cox  V.  Sullivan,  7  Ga.  144,  50  Am. 
Dec.  386;  Strodtman  r.  Menard 
County,  56  111.  App.  120;  Morrison  v. 
Burnett,  56  111.  App.  129.  Babbitt  v. 
Bumpus,  73  Mich.  331,  41  N.  W.  417, 
16  Am.  St.  Rep.  585. 

A  bond  for  the  faithful  perform- 
ance of  his  duties,  executed  by  an  at- 
torney, has  no  effect  whatever  on  his 
liability  under  the  law.  Humboldt 
Bldg.  Asso.  V.  Ducker,  111  Ky.  759. 
64  S.  W.  671. 

i  England. — Purves  v.  Landell,  12 
CI.  &  F.  91 ;  Hill  v.  Finney,  4  F.  &  F. 
616;  Pitt  v.  Yalden,  4  Burr.  2060; 
Parker  r.  Rolls,  14  C.  B.  691,  78  E.  C. 
L.  691. 

United  States. — Suydam  v.  Vance, 
2  McLean  99,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,657. 

Alabama. — Evans  r.  Watrous,  2 
Port.  205.  Compare  Goodman  v. 
Walker,  30  Ala.  497,  68  Am.  Dec.  134, 
set  out   below. 

Arkansas. — Pennington  v.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Maine. — Wilson  r.  Kuss,  20  Me. 
421. 

Slirhitjan. — Babbitt  r.  Bumpus,  73 
Mich.  331,  41  N.  W.  417,  10  Am.  St. 
ll.'p.  585. 

Mississippi. — Hoover  v.  Shackle- 
ford,  23  Miss.  520. 

Rhode  Island. — Holmes  r.  Peck,  1 
R.  f.  242. 

Virginia. — Stephens  V.  Wliite,  2 
Wasii.  203. 

9  Patterson  r.  Fraxer,  (Tex.)  79 
S.  W.  1077. 


In  Goodman  r.  Walker,  30  Ala. 
497,  68  Am.  Dec.  134,  the  court  said: 
"Some  law  writers  and  some  ad- 
judged cases  are  guilty  of  inaccuracy 
in  the  employment  of  the  phrase 
■gross  negligence.'  Our  own  court  fell 
into  the  error  in  the  case  of  Evans  v. 
Watrous,  2  Port.  205.  It  is  there  said 
that  an  attorney  is  not  liable  'unless 
he  has  been  guilty  of  gross  negli- 
gence.' In  the  same  paragrapli  it  is 
asserted  that  he  is  'bound  to  use  rea- 
sonable care  and  skill,'  and  the  mean- 
ing attributed  by  the  writer  of  that 
opinion  to  tiie  expression  'gross  negli- 
gence' is  the  want  or  absence  of 
'reasonable  care  and  skill.'  Thus  ex- 
plained, that  opinion  defines  the  true 
measure  of  an  attorney's  duty  and 
liability." 

Ordinary  skill  means  that  degree 
which  men  engaged  in  a  particular 
art  usually  employ;  not  that  which 
belongs  to  a  few  men  only  of  extra- 
ordinary endowments  and  capacities, 
1  Bell's  Com.  458.  Of  course  the  de- 
gree of  skill  which  is  required  rises 
in  proportion  to  the  value,  the  deli- 
cacy and  the  difficulty  of  the  opera- 
tion. The  want  of  ordinary  skill  is 
ordinary  negligence.  Gross  negli- 
gence is  the  absence  of  slight  skill. 
If,  therefore,  an  artisan  who  under- 
takes a  piece  of  work  whicli  he  pro- 
fesses to  understr.nd,  is  liable  only  for 
gross  negligence,  he  is  bound  to  bring 
only  alight  skill  to  its  execution, 
which  is  a  conclusion  opposed  to  all 


313] 


LIABILITY    FOK    NEGLIGENCE. 


551 


is  usually  a  question  for  the  jury,^''  but  where  the  facts  are  ascer- 
tained it  becomes  a  question  for  the  court.^^ 

§  313.  Attorney  Not  Guarantor  or  Insurer.  —  An  attorney 
at  law,  when  he  enters  into  the  eniployinent  of  another  as  such, 
undertakes  that  ho.  possesses,  and  will  exercise,  a  reasonable 
amount  of  skill,  prudence  and  knowledge  in  the  course  of  his  em- 
ployment; ^^  but  there  is  no  implied  agreement,  in  the  relation  of 
attorney  and  client,  that  the  attorney  will  guarantee  the  success 
of  a  suit  or  other  proceeding, ^^  or  the  soundness  of  his  opinions,^* 
or  that  they  will  be  ultimately  sustained  by  a  court  of  last  resort.^^ 
A  lawyer  is  not  an  insurer;  ^®  and,  in  the  absence  of  a  contract 
providing  for  special  liability,^'''  he  only  undertakes  to  avoid  errors 
which  no  member  of  his  profession  of  ordinary  prudence,  dili- 
gence and  skill  would  commit,^*  and  is  liable  only  where  he  fails 


authority.  But  if  he  is  bound  to  em- 
ploy ordinary  skill,  as  reason  and 
the  authorities  teach,  he  is  liable  for 
more  than  gross  negligence,  or  wilful 
misconduct — he  is  liable  for  whatever 
imperfection  and  failure  result  from 
want  of  that  measure  of  skill. 
Waugh  V.  Shunk,  20  Pa.  St.  130,  per 
Woodward,  J. 

10  England. — Hunter  r.  Caldwell, 
10  Q.  B.  69,  59  E.  C.  L.  69,  11  Jur. 
770,  affirmed  10  Q.  B.  83,  59  E.  C.  L. 
S3,  12  Jur.  285;  Reece  v.  Righy,  4  B. 
&  Aid.  202,  6  E.  C.  L.  451. 

Alabama. — Pinkston  v.  Arrington, 
98  Ala.  489,  13  So.  561. 

Arkansas. — Pennington  r.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

California. — Gambert  v.  Hart,  44 
Cal.  542. 

Indiana. — Wal pole  r.  Carlisle,  32 
Ind.  415. 

Neio  York. — Cleveland  V.  Cromwell, 
110  App.  Div.  82,  96  N.  Y.  S.  475. 

"Gambert    v.   Hart,    44    Cal.    542. 


See  also  Hastings  v.  Halleck,  13  Cal. 
203. 

12  See  the  preceding  section. 

13  Bowman  v.  Tallman.  27  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  212;  Isham  r.  Parker,  3 
Wash.  755,  29  Pac.  835. 

14  Bowman  v.  Tallman,  27  How. 
Pr.   (N.  Y.)  212. 

15  Bowman  v.  Tallman,  27  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)   212. 

16  Babbitt  v.  Bumpus,  73  Mich.  331, 
41  N.  W.  417,  10  Am.  St.  Rep.  585; 
Harriman  r.  Baird,  6  App.  Div.  518, 
39  N.  Y.  S.  592,  affirmed  without  opin- 
ion 158  N.  Y.  691,  53  N.  E.  1126. 

17  Babbitt  r.  Bumpus,  73  Mich.  331, 
41  N.  W.  417,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  585. 

18  Citizens'  Loan,  etc.,  Assoc,  r. 
Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E.  1075, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A.  609; 
Bowman  v.  Tallman,  27  How.  Pr. 
(N.  Y.)  212;  Gallaher  r.  Thompson, 
\\'right  (Ohio)  466;  Grindle  v.  Rush, 
7  Ohio  123,  pt.  2;  Enterline  v.  Miller, 
27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  463. 


552 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§  313 


to  do  so.*^    He  is  not  liable  for  every  mistake*^"  and  error  of  judg- 
ment^ where  he  acts  honestly  and  to  the  best  of  his  ability.^    And 


19  England. — Lamphier  v.  Phipos,  8 
C.  &  P.  475,  34  E.  C.  L.  487;  Pitt  V. 
Yalden.  4  Burr.  2060. 

United  States. — Williams  *;.  Reed, 
3  Mason  405,  29  Fed.  Cas.  No.  17,733; 
National  Sav.  Bank  u.  Ward,  100  U. 
S.  195,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  621;  Equita- 
ble Trust  Co.  V.  Smith,  77  Fed.  677, 
46  U.  S.  App.  561,  23  C.  C.  A.  394; 
Eberhardt  v.  Harkless,  115  Fed.  816. 

Georgia. — Cox  (;.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
148,  50  Am.  Dec.  386. 

Illinois. — Stevens  v.  Walker,  55  111. 
151;  Walker  v.  Stevens,  79  111.  193. 

Indiana. — Niekless  V.  Pearson,  81 
Ind.  427;  Citizens'  Loan,  etc.,  Assoc. 
v.  Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E. 
1075,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A. 
669;  Kepler  v.  Jessup,  11  Ind.  App. 
241,  37  N.  E.  655,  38  N.  E.  826. 

Kentucky. — Humboldt  Bldg.  Ass'n 
i:  Ducker,  111  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  671, 
23  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1073. 

Massachusetts. — Gilbert  v.  Wil- 
liams, 8  Mass.  51,  5  Am.  Dec.  77; 
Keitii  V.  Marcus,  181  Mass.  377,  63 
N.  E.  924. 

Michigan. — Babbitt  V.  Bumpus,  73 
Micl).  331,  41  N.  W.  417,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.  585. 

Mississippi. — Fitch  V.  Scott,  3  How. 
314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86. 

Nebraska. — Reumping  v.  Wharton, 
56  Neb.  536,  76  N.  W.  1076. 

New  York. — Bowman  v.  Tallman, 
27  How.  Pr.  212;  Hatch  v.  Fogerty, 
33  Super.  Ct.  166;  Avery  v.  Jacob,  59 
Super.  Ct.  585  mem.,  15  N.  Y.  S.  564. 

Ohio.  —  Gallalier  V.  Thompson, 
Wright  460. 

Pennsylvania. — Lynch  v.  Com.,  16 
Sorg.   &    R.    368,    16    Am.    Dec.    582; 


Stephens  v.  Downey,  53  Pa.  St.  424; 
Watson  V.  Muirhead,  57  Pa.  St.  161, 
98  Am.  Dec.  213;  Youngman  v.  Miller, 
98  Pa.  St,  196;  Harris  v.  Govett,  3 
W.  N.  C.  560. 

Texas. — Morgan  v.  Giddings,  1  S. 
W.  369. 

Virginia. — Tuley  V.  Barton,  79  Va. 
387. 

20  Pitt  V.  Yalden,  4  Burr.  (Eng.) 
2060;  Stevens  v.  Walker,  55  111.  151; 
Haverty  v.  Haverty,  35  Kan.  438,  11 
Pac.  364;  Malone  V.  Gerth,  100  Wis. 
166,  75  N.  W.  972. 

1  Hinckley  v.  Krug,  (Cal.)  34  Pac. 
118;  Morrison  v.  Burnett,  56  111.  App. 
129;  Breedlove  V.  Turner,  9  Mart  0. 
S.  (La.)  353;  Meredith  v.  Woodward, 
16  W.  N.  C.   (Pa.)   146. 

2  England. — Swinfen  V.  Chelmsford, 
5  H.  &  N.  890. 

Alabama. — Jackson  v.  Clopton,  66 
Ala.  29. 

Indiana. — Hillegass  v.  Bender,  78 
Ind.  225. 

Kansas. — Haverty  v.  Haverty,  35 
Kan.  438,  11  Pac.  364. 

Maine. — Wilson  v.  Russ,  20  Me. 
421. 

New  York. — In  re  Shanley,  57  Misc. 
8,  107  N.  Y^  S.  913,  modified  124  App. 
Div.  935,  109  N.  Y.  S.  434. 

Pennsylvania. — Lynch  v.  Com.,  16 
Serg.  &  R.  368,  16  Am.  Dec.  582;  In 
re  Worrall,  1  Del.  Co.  Rep.  377. 

Texas. — Missouri,  K.  &  T.  R.  Co.  v. 
Ferris,  99  S.  W.  896. 

Wasltington. — State  v.  North  Siiore 
J5oom  &  Driving  Co.,  55  Wasli.  11, 
107  Pac.  196,  modifying  55  Wash.  1, 
103  Pac.  426, 


1 


1 


314] 


LIABILITY    FOK    NEGLIGENCE. 


553 


even  thoiigli  he  has  been  negligent,  an  attorney  will  only  be  re- 
quired to  answer  in  damages  for  the  injuries  occasioned  thereby.' 

§  314.  Ignorance  of  Law.  —  An  attorney  who  undertakes 
the  management  of  business  committed  to  his  charge  thereby  im- 
pliedly represents  that  he  possesses,  and  will  exercise,  the  skill 
and  learning  ordinarily  possessed  and  employed  by  well-informed 
members  of  his  profession  in  the  conduct  of  the  business  which 
he  has  undertaken.^  Therefore,  it  is  essential  that  he  should  know 
and  apply  those  rules  and  principles  of  law  which  are  well  estab- 
lished and  clearly  defined  in  the  elementary  books,  or  which  have 
been  declared  in  judicial  decisions  in  the  jurisdiction  wherein  he 
practices,  and  duly  reported  and  piiblished  for  a  sufficient  length 
of  time  to  have  become  known  to  those  who  exercise  diligence  in 
keeping  pace  with  the  literature  of  the  profession ;  ^  and  he  will 
be  held  liable  to  his  client  for  any  loss  resulting  from  the  lack 
of  this  measure  of  professional  duty  and  attainment.^     But  at- 


3  Suydam  v.  Vance,  2  McLean,  99, 
23  Fed.  Cas.  No.  33,657;  National 
Sav.  Bank  v.  Ward,  ]00  U.  S.  195,  25 
U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  621;  Dean  v.  Radford, 
141  Mich.  36,  104  N.  W.  329,  12  De- 
troit Leg.  N.  354 ;  Harter  v.  Morris, 
18  Ohio  St.  492;  Johnson  v.  Munro, 
3  Hill  L.   (S.  C.)  8. 

4  National  Sav.  Bank  v.  Ward,  100 
U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  621; 
Citizens'  Loan,  Fund,  etc.,  Assoc,  v. 
Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E.  1075, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A.  669. 
And    see  the   two   preceding   sections. 

5  Hillegass  v.  Bender,  78  Ind.  225; 
Citizens'  Loan  Fund,  etc.,  Assoc,  f. 
Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E.  1075, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A.  669; 
Breedlove  v.  Turner,  9  Mart.  O.  S. 
(La.)  353;  Hatch  v.  Fogerty,  33 
Super  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  166;  Enterline  v. 
Miller,  27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  463. 

6  England. — Williams  v.  Gibbs,  6 
N.  &  M.  788,  2  Harr.  &,  W.  241; 
Hart    V.    Frame,    6    CI.    &    F.     193, 


3  Jur.  547.  See  also  Cox  v.  Leech,  1 
C.  B.  N.  S.  617,  87  E.  C.  L.  617,  3  Jur. 
N.  S.  442. 

AJahama. — Goodman  v.  Walker,  30 
Ala.  482,  68  Am.  Dec.  134. 

California. — Gambert  v.  Hart,  44 
Cal.  542. 

Illinois. — Stevens  v.  Walker,  55  111. 
151. 

Indiana. — Reilly  v.  Cavanaugh,  29 
Ind.  435;  Hillegass  v.  Bender,  78  Ind. 
225;  Moorman  r.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144, 
19  N.  E.  739;  Citizens'  Loan  Fund, 
etc.,  Assoc.  V.  Friedley,  123  Ind.  145, 
23  N.  E.  1075,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7 
L.R.A.  669. 

Louisiana. — Breedlove  v.  Turner,  9 
Mart.  0.  S.  353. 

3Iassachusctts. — Varnum  v.  Martin, 
15  Pick.  440. 

Xeiv  York.— A.  B.'s  Estate,  Tuck. 
247. 

Pennsylvania. — McWilliams  v.  Hop- 
kins, 4  Rawle  382;  Enterline  v. 
Miller,  27  Pa.  Super.  Ct  463. 


554 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§    'Jl't 


torneys  do  not  profess  to  know  all  the  law,  or  to  be  incapable  of 
error  or  mistake  in  applying  it  to  the  facts  of  every  case ;  even 
the  most  skilful  of  the  profession  would  hardly  be  able  to  come 
up  to  that  standard.''  A  lawyer  is  neither  a  guarantor  nor  an  in- 
surer.* He  cannot  be  held  liable  for  entertaining  and  acting  upon 
an  erroneous  view  of  the  law  as  to  questions  which  are  new  or 
unsettled,  or  as  to  which  the  average  well-informed  members  of 
his  profession  might  fairly  disagree  in  their  application  of  the 
law.'  "The  fact  that  the  best  lawyers  in  the  country  find  them- 
selves mistaken  as  to  what  the  law  is,  and  are  constantly  differing 
as  to  the  application  of  the  law  to  a  given  state  of  facts,  and  even 
the  ablest  jurists  find  themselves  frequently  differing  as  to  both, 
shows  both  the  fallacy  and  danger  of  any  other  doctrine ;  and 
especially  is  this  so  as  to  questions  of  practice,  and  the  construc- 
tion of  statutes."  "     An  attorney  cannot  be  charged  with  negli- 


7  Xational  Sav.  Bank  c.  Ward,  100 
U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   621. 

In  Montriou  v.  Jefferys,  2  C.  &  P. 
113,  12  E.  C.  L.  50,  the  court  said: 
"God  forbid  tliat  it  should  be  imag- 
ined that  an  attorney,  or  a  counsel, 
or  even  a  judge,  is  bound  to  know 
all  the  law."  See  also  Shilcock  v. 
Passman,  7  C.  &  P.  289,  32  E.  C.  L. 
512;  Lanphier  r.  Phipos,  8  C.  &  P. 
475,  34  E.  C.  L.  487;  Crosby  r.  Mur- 
phy, 8  Ir.  C.  L.  301 ;  Ahlhauser  V. 
Butler,   57   Fed.    121. 

8  See  supra,  §  313. 

9  England. — Godefroy  v.  Dalton,  6 
J^ing,  4G0,  19  E.  C.  L.  132;  Kemp  v. 
Burt,  1  N.  &  M.  262,  4  B.  &  Ad.  424, 
24  E.  C.  L.  93. 

United  States. — Ahlhauser  v.  But- 
ler, 57  Fed.  121;  Kbcrhardt  );.  Ilark- 
IcsM,   115   Fed.  816. 

Illinois. — ]\Iorrison  r.  Burnett,  56 
III.  A  pp.   129. 

Indiana.  —  Citizens'  Loan  I'^nul, 
etc.,  As.soe.  /■.  I'Vicdley,  123  Iiid.  143, 
23  X.  E.  1075,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7 
1..K.A.  Guy. 


Kentucky. — Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc. 
V.  Ducker,  111  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  671. 

Louisiana. — Breedlove  r.  Turner,  9 
Mart.  0.  S.  353. 

Michigan. — Babbitt  v.  Bumpus,  73 
Mich.  33],  41  N.  W.  417,  16  Am.  St. 
Rep.  585. 

'New  York. — Bowman  r.  Tallman,  3 
Abb.  Dec.  182  note,  40  How.  Pr.  1; 
Boucher  v.  Blanchard,  86  N.  Y.  256; 
Patterson  v.  Powell,  31  Misc.  250,  64 
N.  Y.  S.  43,  affirmed  56  App.  Div.  624, 
68  N.  Y.  S.  1145. 

Pennsylvania. — Enterline  r.  Miller, 
27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  463. 

Tennessee.— Hill  v.  Mynatt,  59  S. 
VV.  163. 

Texas. — Morrill  v.  Graham,  27  Tex. 
646. 

10  Babbitt  v.  Bumpus,  73  Mich.  331, 
41  N.  W.  417,  16  Am.  St.  Rep.  585, 
wherein  it  was  also  said :  "Fre- 
quently we  lind  the  decisions  of 
courts  of  last  resort  in  the  (lilFerent 
states  directly  opposed  to  each  other 
upon  the  same  qiu'stions,  and  resting 
ui)on  the  same  state  of  facts.     Tliese 


§  314] 


LIABTLTTY    FOR    NEGI-IGEXCE. 


gence  when  he  accepts,  as  a  correct  exposition  of  the  law,  a  decision 
of  the  supreme  court  of  his  state,"  or  where  he  has  made  a  mis- 
take because  of  a  misstatement  of  facts  made  to  him  by  his  client.^^ 
It  has  also  been  held  that  counsel  cannot  be  convicted  of  negli- 
gence in  yielding  to  the  views  of  the  judge  presiding  at  the  trial 
of  the  cause,^^  nor,  it  seems,  can  want  of  professional  skill  be 
predicated  on  an  attorney's  proceeding  to  try  a  cause  on  a  theory 
which  is  sustained  by  the  court,  even  though  it  is  contrary  to  a 
principle  of  law.^*  An  attorney  is  not  bound  to  possess  knowl- 
edge of  the  laws  of  a  foreign  jurisdiction  and  will  not  be  liable  for 
error  due  to  his  ignorance  thereof. ^^ 


all  admonish  courts  and  jurors  that 
great  care  and  consideration  should 
be  given  to  questions  involving  the 
proper  service  to  be  rendered  by  at- 
torneys when  they  have  acted  in  good 
faith,  and  with  a  fair  degree  of  in- 
telligence, in  the  discliarge  of  their 
duties  wlien  employed  under  the 
usual  implied  contract.  Under  such 
circumstances,  the  errors  which  may 
be  made  by  them  must  be  very  gross 
before  the  attorney  can  be  held  re- 
sponsible. They  should  be  such  as  to 
render  wholly  improbable  a  disagree- 
ment among  good  lawyers  as  to  the 
character  of  the  services  required  to 
be  performed,  and  as  to  the  manner 
of  their  performance  under  all  the 
circumstances  in  the  given  case,  be- 
fore such  responsibility  attaches." 

11  Marsh  r.  Whitmore,  21  Wall. 
178,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  482,  affirming 
1  Hask.  391,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,122; 
Hastings  v.  Halleck,  13  Cal.  203; 
Citizens'  Loan  Fund,  etc.,  Assoc,  v. 
Friedley,  123  Ind.  143,  23  N.  E.  1075, 
18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320,  7  L.R.A.  669. 

12  Lee  V.  Dixon,  3  F.  &  F,  (Eng.) 
744. 

IS  "When    a    lawyer    yields    to    the 


opinion  of  the  presiding  judge,  and 
forbears  to  take  an  exception,  he  can- 
not be  convicted  of  a  want  of  profes- 
sional skill,  professional  knowledge 
or  professional  diligence."  Pearson 
c.  Darrington,  32  Ala.  227. 

14  Avery  r.  Jacob,  59  Super.  Ct.  585 
mem.,  15  N.  Y.  S.  564. 

iSFenaille  r.  Coudert,  44  N.  J.  L. 
286.  In  this  case  the  court  said:  "In 
assuming  the  employment  of  plain- 
tiffs, the  skill  and  knowledge  they 
professed  must  be  considered  with  ref- 
erence to  the  locality  of  their  prac- 
tice. In  the  absence  of  any  'express 
declaration  on  the  subject,  they  will 
be  presumed  to  have  held  themselves 
out  as  possessing  such  skill  and 
knowledge  as  attorneys  practicing  [in 
the  state  of  New  York]  might  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  possess,  and  no 
more.  As  attorneys  of  New  York 
they  are  not  to  be  presumed  to  know 
the  laws  of  a  foreign  state.  Nor  did 
they  impliedly  undertake  that  they 
had  such  knowledge,  by  accepting  an 
employment  which  .  .  .  was  in 
terms  limited  to  drawing  a  contract 
in  all  respects  binding  between  the 
parties." 


556 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§   -!■ 


§  315.  As  to  Giving  Advice. —  In  undertaking  to  advise  a 
client,  the  attorney  impliedly  guarantees  that  he  has  a  sufficient 
knowledge  of  the  law  for  that  purpose,  and  that  he  will  use  rea- 
sonable care  and  skill  therein;  should  he  fail  in  this  respect  he 
will  be  responsible  to  his  client  for  any  damage  sustained  by  rea- 
son of  such  failure.-^^  Instances  of  such  liability  frequently  arise 
because  of  erroneous  advice  given  with  respect  to  the  validity  of 
title  to  property/'  or  in  respect  to  the  existence  of  incumbrances 


16  United  States. — National  Sav. 
Bank  v.  Ward,  100  U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S. 
(L.  ed.)    621. 

Alabama. — Pinkston  v.  Arrington, 
98  Ala.  489,  13  So.  561.  See  also 
Goodman  v.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482,  68 
Am.  Dec.  134. 

Illinois. — Chase  r.  Heaney,  70  111. 
268. 

Indiana.  —  Citizens'  Loan  Fund, 
etc.,  Assoc,  r.  Friedlev,  123  Ind.  143, 
23  N.  E.  1075,  18  Am.  St.  Rep.  320, 
7  L.R.A.  669. 

Iowa. — Thomas  v.  Schee,  80  la.  237, 
45  N.  W.  539. 

Louisiana.- — Hcffner  v.  Wise,  51  La. 
Ann.  1637,  26  So.  415. 

'Maryland. — Cochrane  v.  Little,  71 
Md.  323,  18  Atl.  698. 

Minnesota. — Ryan  v.  Long,  35 
Minn.  394,  29  K  W.  51. 

l^ehraslca. — Peckinbaugh  v.  Quillin, 
12  Xeb.  586,  12  N.  W.  104. 

New  York. — Gilion  v.  Albert,  7 
Paige  278;  Couse  v.  Horton,  23  App. 
Div.  198,  49  N.  Y.  S.  132;  Cleveland 
V.  Cromwell,  110  App.  Div.  82,  96  N. 
Y.  S.  475. 

17  England. — Howell  v.  Young,  5  B. 
&  C.  259,  11  L.  C.  L.  219,  2  C.  &  P.  1238, 
12  E.  C.  L.  107;  Whitehead  v.  Greet- 
ham,  2  Bing.  464,  9  E.  C.  L.  483,  10 
Moo.  C.  PI.  183;  Treson  v.  Pearman,  3 
P..  &  C.  7!i!i,  10  K.  C.  L.  232,  5  Dowl.  & 
R.  6H7;  l)ra\  r.  Soroope,  2  B.  &  Ad.  581, 


22  E.  C.  L.  145,  1  Dowl.  69;  Langdon 
r.  Godfrey,  4  F.  &  F.  445. 

Ireland. — O'Hanlon  v.  Murray,  12 
Ir.  C.  L.  161. 

United  States. — Page  v.  Trutch,  5 
Am.  L.  Rec.  155,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10.668;  National  Sav.  Bank  r.  Ward, 
100  U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)   621. 

California. — Hinckley  r.  Krug,  34 
Pac.  118. 

loiva. — Thomas  v.  Schee,  80  Iowa 
237,  45  N.  W.  539. 

Kentucky. — Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc. 
r.  Ducker,  82  S.  W.  969,  26  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  931. 

Maryland. — Watson  v.  Calvert 
Bldg.,  etc.,  Assoc,  91  Md.  25,  45  Atl. 
879. 

Missouri. — Gilman  v.  Hovey,  26 
Mo.  280;  Priddy  V.  Mackenzie,  205 
Mo.  181,  103  S.  W.  968;  Renkert  v. 
Title  Guaranty  Trust  Co.,  102  Mo. 
App.  267,  76  S.  W.  641. 

Neic  York. — Byrnes  V.  Palmer,  18 
App.  Div.  1,  26  Civ.  Proe.  382,  45 
N.  Y.  S.  479,  afirmed  160  N.  Y.  699, 
55  N.  E.  1093;  Bachman  v.  Goldmark, 
48  Super.  Ct.  549;  Gardner  v.  Wood, 
37  Misc.  93,  74  N.  Y.  S.  750. 

Oregon. — Currey  v.  Butcher,  37 
Ore.  380,  61  Pac.  631. 

Degree  of  Care  Required  as  to  Title. 
— In  Byrnes  r.  Palmer,  18  App.  Div. 
1,  45  N.  Y.  S.  479,  affirmed  160  N.  Y. 
699,   55  N.  E.   1093,   the  court  said: 


§  315] 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


557 


thereon.^^  So,  an  attorney  is  liable  in  damages  to  his  client  where 
he  neglects  to  advise  him  concerning  matters  which  come  within 
the  scope  of  his  duties, ^^  or  where  he  fraudulently  gives  advice  to 
the  injury  of  his  client.^"     But  an  attorney  cannot  be  held  to  war- 


"It  is  also  true  that  the  same  rule 
that  applies  to  the  liability  of  an  at- 
torney in  the  conduct  of  a  litigation 
is  applicable  to  his  liability  in  exam- 
ining titles.  He  is  certainly  not  a 
guarantor  that  the  titles  to  wliich  he 
certifies  are  perfect.  He  is  only  liable 
for  negligence  or  misconduct  in  their 
examination.  But  in  determining  the 
question  of  negligence  on  the  part  of 
an  attorney  in  examining  a  title,  it 
is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  the 
marked  difference  between  proper  con- 
duct in  tliat  employment  and  in  a  liti- 
gation. In  a  litigation  a  lawyer  is 
well  warranted  in  taking  cliances. 
To  some  extent  litigation  is  a  game 
of  chance.  The  conduct  of  a  lawsuit 
involves  questions  of  judgment  and 
discretion  as  to  which  even  the  most 
distinguisiied  members  of  the  pro- 
fession may  differ.  They  often  pre- 
sent subtle  and  doubtful  questions  of 
law.  If  in  such  cases  a  lawyer  errs 
on  a  question  not  elementary  or  con- 
clusively settled  by  authority,  that 
error  is  one  of  judgment  for  wliicli 
he  is  not  liable.  But  passing  titles, 
as  a  rule,  is  of  an  entirely  different 
nature.  A  purchaser  of  real  estate 
is  entitled  not  only  to  a  good,  but  to 
a  marketable  title,  that  is,  a  title 
free  from  reasonable  doubt.  (Cam- 
brelleng  v.  Purton,  125  N.  Y.  610; 
Fleming  v.  Burnham,  100  N.  Y.  1.) 
In  Jordan  v.  Poillon,  77  N.  Y.  518, 
the  Court  of  Appeals  refused  to  com- 
pel a  purchaser  at  a  judicial  sale  to 
take  title.  Tliough  the  objection  pre- 
sented   a   mere   question   of    law,   the 


court  declined  to  pass  upon  it  and 
determine  it  in  tlie  absence  of  parties 
interested  who  would  not  be  con- 
cluded by  the  decision.  It  is,  there- 
fore, the  duty  of  a  convej'ancer  to 
see  that  his  client  obtains  a  market- 
able title,  and  to  reject  titles  involved 
in  doubt,  unless  the  client  is  fully  in- 
formed of  the  nature  of  the  risk  and 
is  willing  to  accept  it.  A  careful 
lawyer  might  readily  advise  a  client 
that  he  was  entitled  to  a  piece  of  real 
property,  and  that  it  was  proper  to 
bring  an  action  for  its  recovery, 
while,  at  the  same  time,  he  would  re- 
ject a  title  wliich  involved  the  same 
question  as  to  which  he  had  advised 
a  suit." 

18  Hinckley  v.  Krug,  (Cal.)  34  Pac. 
118;  Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc.  Co.  i: 
Ducker,  82  S.  W.  969,  26  Ky.  L.  Kep. 
931;  Renkert  V.  Title  Guaranty  Trust 
Co.,  102  Mo.  App.  267,  76  >S.  W.  641 ; 
Currey  v.  Butcher,  37  Ore.  380,  61 
Pac.  631;  Lawall  v.  Groman,  180  Pa. 
St.  532,  37  Atl.  98,  57  Am.  St.  Rep. 
662. 

19  Jamison  v.  Weaver,  81  la.  212, 
46  N.  W.  996.  Validity  of  divorce. 
Hill  V.  Montgomery,  84  111.  App.  300, 
affirmed  184  111.  220,  56  N.  E.  320. 
See  also  supra,  §  155. 

20  See  Looff  r.  Lawton,  97  N.  Y. 
478.  And  see  generally,  supra,  §§ 
152-163,  as  to  dealings  between  at- 
torney and  client. 

Advising  False  Testimony. — An  at- 
torney would  be  liable  for  damages  to 
his  clients  from  his  advice  to  one  of 
tliem   to   testify    falsely   in   a   matter 


;8 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§   316 


rant  the  correctness  of  his  advice  on  matters  of  law;  *  he  is  neither 
an  insurer  nor  a  guarantor  in  this  respect. '^  Xor  can  liability  be 
predicated  on  the  mere  expression  of  an  opinion  as  to  matters  of 
fact,  as,  for  instance,  the  probability  of  realizing  a  certain  sum 
under  a  judicial  sale,^  or  on  the  failure  to  advise  his  client  on 
subjects  concerning  which  his  opinion  was  not  sought,  and  of 
which  he  was  unaware.'*  A  solicitor  or  attorney  at  law  is  under 
no  duty  to  dissuade  his  client  from  entering  upon  a  contemplated 
business  venture.  Having  concern  for  the  latter's  prosperity,  the 
former  may  tender  his  advice  in  that  regard,  but  if  he  fails  so  to 
do  he  is  not  chargeable  with  neglect.* 

§  316.  Investments    and    Securities.  —   An     attorney    who 
agrees  to  invest  funds  for  his  client  must  use  reasonable  care,  dili- 


committed  to  the  attorney's  legal 
guidance.  Flynn  v.  Judge,  149  App. 
Div.  278,  133  N.  Y.  S.  794,  wherein  the 
court  said:  "The  learned  [trial]  court 
stated  its  view  'that  to  allow  the  per- 
jurer himself  to  sue  the  man  who  ad- 
vised him  to  commit  perjury,  to  re- 
cover damages,  would  be  a  most  mon- 
strous proposition.'  Without  quarrel 
with  the  soundness  of  the  general 
proposition,  and  without  considering 
a  germane  limitation  in  cases  of 
liduciary  relation,  it  seems  to  us  that 
the  learned  court  lost  view  of  the 
purpose  and  hearing  of  the  testimony. 
The  plaintifl's  were  not  seeking  to  re- 
cover damages  for  a  perjury  of  one  of 
their  number,  from  the  inciter  of  the 
])erjury.  They  sought  to  recover 
what  they  had  been  compelled  to  pay 
on  account  of  a  breach  of  defendant's 
obligation  as  an  attorney  and  coun- 
selor at  law;  and  their  contention 
was  that  as  an  attorney  he  advised 
line  of  their  number  to  testify  falsely 
in  a  matter  committed  to  his  hjgal 
guidance.  This  was  bad  or  improper 
iidvicc,  in  violation  of  the  oliligation 
of   till'    (Icfi'iKJant    iiiidcr    iiis   retainer, 


and      damage      resulting      therefrom 
might,  we  think,  be  actionable." 

1  Illinois. — iClorrison  v.  Burnett,  5tt 
111.  App.  129. 

Indiana. — Citizens'  Loan,  etc., 
Assoc.  V.  Friedley,  123  Ind.  143.  23  N. 
E.  1075,  18  Am.  St.  Eep.  320,  7 
L.R.A.  6G9. 

Michigan. — See  Gott  f.  Brigham,  41 
Mich.  227,  2  N.  W.  5. 

Neiv  Yoi-k. — Harriman  v.  Baird,  6 
App.  Div.  518,  39  N.  Y.  S.  592;  Bow- 
man v.  Tallman,  40  How.  Pr.  1. 

Tennessee. — Hill  v.  Mynatt.  59  S. 
VV.  163. 

2  An  attorney,  who  is  merely  asked 
to  draw  a  contract  of  sale  and  for  cer- 
tain advice,  is  not,  in  the  absence  of 
anything  wrong  with  tlie  ])apers 
drawn  or  the  advice,  liable  to  his 
client  for  failure  of  the  other  party 
to  make  payments  as  agreed.  Hark- 
nesa  r.  Caven,  199  Pa.  St.  207,  48  Atl. 
1080. 

3  Renmping  V.  Wharton.  50  Neb. 
530,  70  N.  W.  ]076. 

4  In  re  Fuller,  4  Kulp  (Pa.)   479. 
SCohn   r.   ileusner,  9  Misc.  482,   30 

N.   V.  8.  244. 


;]!()] 


LIABILITY    FOK    NEGI-l(i  EXCE. 


gcnce,  and  skill,  in  seeing  that  snch  investments  are  safely  and 
prudently  made,  and  that  the  client  is  amply  secured,  and  he  is 
responsible  for  any  loss  occasioned  by  his  failure  so  to  do.^  In 
loaning  money  to  another  for  his  client,  the  attorney  should  act 
only  for  one  of  the  parties,  and  if  he  assumes  to  act  for  both,  al- 
though he  may  be  paid  by  one  only,  he  is  responsible  for  a  failure 
to  do  for  each  what  his  duty  as  attorney  requires  him  to  do.'  ]jut 
a  solicitor  or  attorney  at  law  who  has  not  assumed  personally  to 
invest  his  client's  money,  and  who  is  called  upon  only  to  lend 
his  professional  aid  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  his  client's  pro- 
posed venture  into  effect,  by  investigating  the  title  to  the  property 
or  other  security  constituting  the  subject-matter  of  the  proposed 
investment,  and  the  preparation  of  the  necessary  legal  documents, 
assumes  no  responsibility  for  loss  not  occasioned  by  any  negligence 
on  his  part ;  thus  he  would  not  be  liable  because  of  the  insufficiency 
of  the  security.'     If,  however,  an  attorney  has  been  employed  for 


6  England. — Langdon  ?J.  Godfrey,  4 
F.  &  F.  445;  Middloton  v.  Pollock,  4 
Cli.  D.  49,  4G  L.  J.  Ch.  39;  Birt  v. 
Burt,  36  L.  T.  N.  S.  943. 

United  States. — Page  i\  Trutcli,  5 
Amer.  Law  Ree.  155,  18  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
10,668. 

Marylatid. — Watson  v.  Calvert 
Building  &  Loan  Assoc,  91  Md.  25, 
45  Atl.  879. 

yeir  York. — Seiferd  V.  Meyer,  93 
App.  Div.  615,  87  N.  Y.  S.  636:  Kis- 
sani  V.  Squires,  102  App.  Div.  536,  92 
N.  Y.  S.  873. 

Pennsylvania. — Lawall  V.  Groman, 
180  Pa.  St.  532,  37  Atl.  98,  57  Am. 
St.  Rep.  662. 

Wisconsin. — Rogers  v.  Priest,  74 
Wis.  538,  43  N.  W.  510. 

7  Donaldson  v.  Haldane,  7  CI.  &  F. 
(Eng.)  762;  Taylor  v.  Blacklow,  3 
Bing.  N.  Cas.  235,  32  E.  C.  L.  100,  3 
Scott  014;  Cory  v.  Wirth,  21  Kan. 
10;  Ryan  ().  Long,  35  Minn.  394,  29 
N.    W.    51;    Arnold    v.    Robertson.    3 

Daly  (N.  Y.)    298.     As  to   represent- 


ing conflicting  interests  generally, 
see  stipra,   §§    174-182. 

Duty  of  Attorney  to  Adcise  as 
against  Himself. — In  Gott  r.  Brig- 
liam,  41  Mich.  227,  2  N.  W.  5,  an  at- 
torney engaged  to  lend  money  for  a 
client,  lent  it,  and  took  a  note  for  the 
amount  made  to  himself,  wliicli  he  in- 
dorsed and  delivered  to  her.  It  was 
held  that  she  could  not  recover 
against  him  under  a  declaration  al- 
leging that  he  had  engaged  to  advise 
her  as  to  all  proper  action  necessary 
for  her  to  take  for  her  security,  and 
complaining  that  he  did  not  in  fact 
note  at  maturity  in  order  to  charge 
advise  her  that  she  must  protest  the 
the  indorser. 

8  Hayne  r.  Rhodes,  8  Q.  B.  342,  55 
E.  C.  L.  342,  10  Jur.  71  ;  Cohn  r. 
Hcusner,  9  Misc.  482,  30  N.  Y.  S. 
244. 

The  mere  giving  of  money  to  a 
solicitor  for  the  purpose  of  general 
investment  does  not  of  itself  create 
the  relation  of  trustee  and  cestui  que 


560 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§  317 


the  purpose  of  passing  on  the  sufheiencv  of  security,  he  would  be 
liable  for  negligence  or  fraud  in  so  doing.^ 

§  317.  In  Preparing  and  Recording  Written  Instruments. 

—  An  attorney  employed  to  prepare  a  written  instrument  is  re- 
sponsible for  any  loss  sustained  by  his  client  as  the  result  of  his 
negligence  in  so  doing.^"  So,  also,  where  an  attorney  agTees  to  have 
certain  documents  recorded,  and  neglects  to  do  so,  he  will  be  re- 
sponsible for  any  damage  resulting  from  his  negligence  in  this 
respect. ^^  An  attorney  who  undertakes  to  invest  his  client's  money 
is  liable  for  failing  to  enter  of  record  the  security  taken  therefor, 
when  recording  is  essential  to  its  validity  or  effectiveness.^^  But 
the  mere  fact  that  an  attorney  is  employed  to  prepare  papers  which 
are  required  to  be  recorded,  does  not  make  it  the  attorney's  duty  to 
have  them  recorded;  there  must  be  a  special  undertaking  for  this 
purpose,  or  the  original  employment  must  be  broad  enough  to  in- 
clude it.^^ 


trust,  and  so  make  the  solicitor  liable 
as  trustee  for  a  deficiency  in  the  se- 
curity. Mare  v.  Lewis,  4  Ir.  Eq.  219. 
In  Scholes  v.  Brook,  64  L.  T.  N.  S. 
(Eng.)  674,  affirming  63  L.  T.  X.  S. 
837,  a  firm  of  valuers,  employed  on 
the  recommendation  of  plaintiff's  so- 
licitor to  value  certain  property, 
were  held  liable  for  their  negligence; 
but  the  solicitor  was  held  not  liable, 
although  he  pointed  out  to  the  val- 
uers certain  suspicious  facts,  but 
failed  to  communicate  them  to  his 
client. 

9  Howell  r.  ^'ouiig,  5  B.  &.  C.  259, 
1]  E.  C.  L.  219. 

10  Parker  r.  It, .lis,  14  C.  B.  691.  78 
E.  C.  r..  69]  ;  Stein  v.  Kremer,  112  X. 
Y.  S.  1087. 

In  Stannard  V.  I'llitlioriii-,  10  Bing. 
491,  2.5  E.  C.  L.  212,  4  Moo.  &  S.  359, 
Tindal,  C  J.,  snid:  "It  may  be  as- 
sumed as  a  gciiiTtil  |iriiici])l('.  Iliat  nn 
attorney,  by  reason  of  tlir  ciiiDliiinciit 
he  derives  from  the  jjusiiios  in  uiiicli 


he  is  employed,  undertakes,  and  is 
bound  to  take  care,  that  his  client 
does  not  enter  into  any  covenant  or 
stipulation  that  may  expose  him  to  a 
greater  degree  of  responsibility  than 
is  ordinarily  attached  to  the  business 
in  hand,  or,  at  all  events,  that  he 
does  not  do  so  till  the  consequences 
have  been  explained  to  him." 

n  Indiana. — Stott  r.  Harrison,  73 
Ind.   17. 

New  Jersey. — Fenaille  r.  Coudert, 
44  N.  J.  L.  290. 

Ne^f  York. — Arnold  v.  Robertson,  3 
Daly  208,  appeal  dismissed  50  N.  Y. 
683;  Stuart  v.  Walkup,  114  N.  Y.  S. 
483. 

I'crinsylrania. — ]\liller  r.  Wilson, 
24  Pa.  St.  114. 

Canada. — Lynch  v.  Wilson,  22  U.  C. 
Q.  B.  226. 

12  Fenaille  r.  Coudert,  44  X.  J.  L. 
2S6.      And   see  snpro,  §  316. 

13  Fenaille  V.  Coudert,  44  N.  J.  L. 
286. 


318] 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


561 


§  318.  Attorney's  Negligence  Imputed  to  Client.  —  It  is 

well  settled  that  the  negligence  of  an  attorney  who  acts  within  the 
scope  of  his  authority  will  be  imputed  to  his  client.'^*  Thus,  in 
pursuance  of  this  rule,  equity  will  not  relieve  against  a  judgment 
at  law  on  account  of  any  neglect,  inattention,  unskilfulness,  or 
mistake  of  the  attorney  of  the  party  against  whom  the  judgment 
has  been  rendered. ■^^  ''The  law  exacts  of  attorneys  diligence  in 
their  business,  and  will  not  relieve  against  negligence  on  their  part. 


^^  Illinois. — Yatos  r.  Monroe,  1.1 
111.  219;  Kern  v.  Strasbergor,  71  111. 
413;  Clark  r.  Ewing,  93  111.  572; 
Gross  V.  Sloan,  58  111.  App.  302 ;  Hit- 
tie  r.  Zeimer,  62  111.  App.  170. 

Iowa. — Clark  v.  Stevens,  55  la.  361, 
7  N.  W.  591. 

Maine. — Beale  v.  Swasey,  106  Me. 
35,  20  Ann.  Cas.  396,  75  Atl.  134. 

Missouri. — Biebinger  v.  Taylor,  64 
Mo.  63;  Tiernan  v.  Richards,  7  Mo. 
App.  597;  Bowman  v.  Field,  11  Mo. 
App.  594;  Welch  v.  Mastin,  98  Mo. 
App.  273,  71  S.  W.  1090;  Parker  v. 
Britton,  133  ]\Io.  App.  270,  113  S.  W. 
259. 

tiew  Hampshire. — ^Morgan  v.  Joyce, 
66  K  H.  476,  30  Atl.  1119. 

JVew?  Jersey. — Leo  v.  Green,  52  N. 
J.  Eq.  1,  28  Atl.  904. 

ISlew  York. — Rochester  Bank  v.  Em- 
erson, 10  Paige  359. 

North  Carolina. — Boing  v.  Raleigh 
&  G.  R.  Co.,  88  X.  C.  62. 

15  United  States. — Wynn  r.  Wilson, 
Hempst.  698,  30  Fed.  Cas.  No.  18,116; 
U.  S.  Bank  v.  Daniel,  12  Pet.  32,  9  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  989;  Rogers  v.  Parker,  1 
Hughes  148,  20  Fed.  Cas.  No.  12,018; 
Crim  V.  Handley,  94  U.  S.  659,  24  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  219;  Barhorst  r.  Arm- 
strong, 42  Fed.  2;  Cowlej^  v.  North- 
ern Pac.  R.  Co.,  46  Fed.  325;  Celina 
V.  Eastport  Sav.  Bank,  68  Fed.  401, 
37  U.  S.  App.  164,  15  C.  C.  A.  495. 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 36. 


Alabama. — McBroom  r.  Sommer- 
ville,  2  Stew.  515;  Powell  v.  Stewart, 
17  Ala.  719;  Watts  r.  Gayle,  20  Ala. 
817;  Duckworth  v.  Duckworth,  35 
Ala.  70;  Broda  V.  Greenwald,  66  Ala. 
538. 

Arkansas. — Jamison  v.  May.  13 
Ark.  600;  Burton  r.  Hynson,  14  Ark. 
32;  Vallentine  v.  Holland,  40  Ark. 
338;  Scroggin  V.  Hammett  Grocer 
Co.,  66  Ark.  183,  49  S.  W.  820. 

California. — Barnett  r.  Kilbourne, 
3  Cal.  327;  Borland  v.  Thornton,  12 
Cal.  440;  Davis  v.  Chalfant,  81  Cal. 
627,  22  Pac.  972;  Welsh  v.  Koch,  4 
Cal.  App.  571,  88  Pac.  604;  Amestoy 
Estate  Co.  v.  Los  Angeles,  5  Cal.  App. 
273,  90  Pac.  42. 

Florida.— Bihhle  V.  Truluck,  12  Fla. 
185;  Peacock  v.  Feaster,  52  Fla.  565, 
42  So.  889. 

Georgia. — Albritton  r.  Bird,  R.  ^I. 
Charlt.  93;  Smith  r.  Fouche,  55  Ga. 
120;  Hambrick  v.  Crawford,  55  Ga. 
335;  Odell  r.  Mundy,  59  Ga.  641; 
Augusta  Mut.  Loan  Assoc,  i".  Mc- 
Andrew,  63  Ga.  490;  Sasser  r.  Olliff, 
91  Ga.  84,  16  S.  E.  312. 

Idaho. — Donovan  V.  MiHer,  12 
Idaho  600,  10  Ann.  Cas.  444,  88  Pac. 
82,  9  L.R.A.(N.S.)   524. 

Illinois. — Yates  r.  Monroe,  13  111. 
212;  Ballance  v.  Loomiss,  22  111.  82; 
Owens  r.  Ranstead,  22  111.  161;  Al- 
bro  V.  Dayton,  28  111.   325;    Ames  v. 


162 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


L§  318 


But  it  regards  attorneys  as  mere  men,  who,  with  the  best  intentions, 
may  be  mistaken  in  the  most  important  affairs.  They  are  not 
required  to  be  diligent  and  careful  beyond  the  capacities  of  human 
nature.  If  an  honest,  diligent  attorney  misunderstands  the  ex- 
tent of  his  employment,  he  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  negligent 
w^hen  acting  in  good  faith  upon  his  belief  as  to  his  duty."  ^^  So, 
also,  there  are  instances  wherein  relief  was  afforded  because  of 


Snider,  55  111.  498;  Fuller  V.  Little, 
69  111.  229;  Clark  r.  Ewing,  93  111. 
572;  Newman  v.  Schueck,  58  111.  App. 
328;  Henry  v.  Seager,  80  111.  App. 
172. 

Indiana. — Brumbaugh  v.  Stockman, 
83  Ind.  583 ;  Sliarp  V.  Moffitt,  94  Ind. 
240;  Center  Tp.  v.  Marion  County, 
110  Ind.  579,  10  N.  E.  291 ;  Parker  v. 
Indianapolis  Nat.  Bank,  1  Ind.  App. 
462,  27  N.  E.  650. 

loica. — Bartliell  r.  Roderick,  34  la. 
517;  Jones  V.  Leech,  46  la.  186;  Jack- 
son V.  Gould,  96  la.  488,  65  N.  W. 
400. 

Kentucl-y. — Patterson  V.  Matthews, 
3  Bibb  80;  Barrow  V.  Jones,  1  J.  J. 
Marsh.  471;  Payton  v.  McQuown,  97 
Ky.  757,  31  S.  W.  874,  53  Am.  St. 
Rep.  437,  31  L.R.A.  33;  Louisville, 
etc.,  R.  Co.  V.  Paynter,  125  Ky.  520, 
101   S.  W.  935. 

Maryland.  —  Rup|)ert.sbcrgor  v. 
Clark,  53  Md.  402. 

Massachusetts. — Amlierst  College  V. 
Alien,  16.-)  Mass.  178,  42  N.  E.  570. 

Mississippi. — McLaughlin  r.  Clark, 
Freem.  Cli.  38.");  Webster  r.  Skipwith, 
26  Miss.  341 ;  Carter  r,.  Lyman,  33 
Miss.  171  ;  Newman  r.  Morris,  52 
Miss.  402. 

Missouri. — l")iiiin  /".  Hansard,  37 
Mo.  199;  Miller  /•.  {'..Tiircki  r,  4(1  :\!o. 
194;  :Mattlii^  r.  CaiiKidii.  (i2  Mo.  504; 
Ketdiuiii  /■.  Ilariowr.  84  Mo.  225; 
Fears  f.  Riby,    148  .Mu.  49,  49  S.  \V. 


836;  Bowman  v.  Field,  9  Mo.  App. 
576,  11  Mo.  App.  594;  Patterson  v. 
Yancey,  97  Mo.  App.  681,  71  S.  W. 
845. 

Nebraska. — Funk  v.  Kansas  Mfg. 
Co.,  53  Neb.  450,  73  N.  W.  931; 
Tootle-Weakley  Millinery  Co.  v.  Bill- 
ingsley,  74  Neb.  531,  105  N.  W.  85. 

Xew  Hampshire. — Butler  v.  Morse, 
06  N.  H.  429,  23  Atl.  90. 

yorth  Carolina. — Fentress  v.  Rob- 
ins, 4  N.  C.  610,  7  Am.  Dec.  704. 

07(io.— White  v.  U.  S.  Bank,  6 
Ohio  529. 

South.  Carolina. — O'Keefe  v.  Rice, 
Bailey  Eq.  179;  Vaughan  v.  Hewitt, 
17  S.  C.  442. 

Tennessee. — Morton  v.  Nunnelly,  3 
Hayw.  210;  Click  V.  Gillespie,  4 
Hayw.  5 ;  Chester  v.  Apperson,  4 
Heisk.  639;  Graham  v.  Roberts,  1 
Head  56. 

Texas. — Avocato  v.  Dell'Ara,  91  S. 
W.  830. 

Vermont. — Warner  iK  Conant,  24 
Vt.  351,  58  Am.  Dec.  178. 

Virginia. — Richmond  Enquirer  Co. 
V.  Robinson,  24  (ilrat.  548;  Ay  res  V. 
Moreliead,  77  Va.  580. 

Wisconsin. — Farmers'  L.  &  T.  Co. 
V.  Walworth  County  Bank,  23  Wis. 
249;  Hiles  V.  Mosher,  44  Wis.  601. 

18  Buena  Vista  County  v.  I.  F.  &  S. 
C.  R.  Co.,  49  la.  657 ;  Kirk  r.  Cover, 
90  S.  W.  824,  29  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1046. 
See  also  Day  r.   Wells,  31   Conn.  344. 


§    .'5  It)  J  LIABILITY    FOR    I^iEGLIGENCE.  563 

the  insolvenoy  of  the  attorney  whose  negligence  was  responsihle  for 
the  entry  of  a  judgment  by  default  against  his  client.^' 

In  Conducting  Litigation. 

§  319.  In  General.  —  The  rules  heretofore  stated  with  refer- 
ence to  an  attorney's  liability  to  his  client  for  negligence  general- 
ly/* apply  with  equal  force  to  negligence  in  the  conduct  of  legal 
proceedings.  The  general  rule  is  that  an  attorney  who  under- 
takes to  conduct  litigation,  impliedly  contracts  to  exercise  due 
care,  skill  and  knowledge  of  the  law  in  the  transaction  of  his 
client's  business/^  and  his  negligence  in  that  regard  is  a  breach  of 
his  contract.^"  Thus  an  attorney  is  prima  facie  liable  in  damages 
to  his  client  for  a  loss  occasioned  by  his  neglect  to  bring  suit  with- 
in the  time  limited  by  statute,^  or  by  his  neglect  to  deposit  service 
fees,^  or  for  neglectino;  to  notify  his  client  of  the  giving  of  insuffi- 
cient  security  by  the  adverse  party,^  or  for  ignoring  notice  of  mo- 
tions to  be  made  in  the  cause.*  So  an  attorney  employed  to 
defend  a  suit  is  liable  in  damages  for  his  failure  or  neglect  to  do 
so,*  providing,  of  course,  that  his  client  has  informed  him  as  to'  the 

17  Denton   v.   Noyes,    6    Johns.    (N.       Civ.  Cas.  Ct.  App.   (Tex.)   §  29,  14  S. 
Y.)  29G,  5  Am.  Dec.  237;  Meacham  v.      W.  1007. 

Dudley,  6  Weml.   (X.  Y.)   514;  Hiieb-  2  King  r.  Fourchy,  47  La.  Ann.  .354, 

scliman  v.  Baker.  7  Wis.  542.  16  So.  814. 

18  See  supra,   §§   .312-318.  3  McWillianis  v.  Hopkins,   4   Rawle 

19  Roolcer  i\  Bruce,  45  Ind.  App.  57,  (Pa.)    382. 

90  N.  E.  8G.  4  Manufacturers'  Paper  Co.  v.  Lind- 

2CCastner     v.    Gray,     (Colo.)     331  blom,  80  111.  App.  267. 

Pac.  404;  Walpole  v.  Carlisle,  32  Ind.  5  Burnette  v.  Elliott,  72  Kan.  624, 

415;  Moorman  v.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144,  84  Pac.  374;  Grayson  v.  Wilkinson.  5 

19  N.  E.  739;  Rooker  V.  Bruce,  45  Ind.  Smedes  &  M.    (Miss.)   268. 

App.  57,  90  N.  E.  86;  Burnette  v.  El-  Persuading    Client    Not    to    Put    in 

liott,    72    Kan.    624,    84    Pac.    374;  Meritorious  Defense.— In  Hill  r.  Fin- 

Breedlove    v.    Turner,   9    Mart.   0.    S.  ney,  4   F.   &   F.    (Eng.)    616,   one   A. 

(La.)    353;    Whitney   r.   Abbott,   191  having  been  sued  for  a  divorce  by  his 

Mass.    59,    77    N.    E.    524;    Cliilds    v.  wife,  employed  an  attorney  to  defend 

Comstock,  69  App.  Div.  160,  74  N.  Y.  him,   telling  him  he  had   a  good   de- 

S.  643.  fense,   and  would    consent   to   a    com- 

1  Drury   r.   Butler,    171    ilass.   171,  promise  verdict  provided  no  evidence 

50  N.  E.  527 ;    Moore    v.   Juvenal,  92  should  be  taken  in  the  case.     The  at- 

Pa.  St.  484;   Fox  v.  Jones,  4  Willson  torney  advised  him  to  consent  to  llie 


564 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGHGEXCE. 


[§   320 


nature  of  his  defense.^  If,  however,  the  defense  proposed  l)y  the 
client  was  not  a  good  one,  or  not  available,  the  attorney's  liability, 
if  any,  would  only  be  nominal.'  But  attorneys  are  neither  guaran- 
tors nor  insurers,^  and  in  order  to  recover  against  them  on  the 
charge  of  negligence,  the  elements  thereof  must  be  alleged  and 
established.^  In  this  connection  it  must  be  remembered  that 
attorneys  have  more  extensive  powers  in  conducting  litiga- 
tion than  in  the  performance  of  other  professional  duties.^"  The 
right  of  an  attorney  to  terminate  his  relations  with  a  client  for 
cause  has  been  considered  heretofore. ^^ 

§  320.  Preparation  and  Filing  of  Pleadings. — It  is  the  duty 
of  an  attorney  to  prepare,  file,  and  cause  to  be  served  when  neces- 
sary, all  such  pleadings  as  are  essential  properly  to  present  his 
client's  cause  for  the  consideration  of  the  court ;  and  he  renders 
himself  liable  for  any  loss  or  injury  which  his  client  has  sustained 
in  consequence  of  his  failure  so  to  do.'^^    But  an  attorney  does  not 


compromise,  and  had  him  stay  away 
from  the  trial;  as  a  consequence,  the 
wife's  evidence  was  introduced  and 
was  not  contradicted,  though  A  had 
evidence  to  overthrow  it.  A  then 
sued  his  attorney,  alleging  that  such 
evidence,  going  uncontradicted,  had 
damaged  him.  It  was  held  that  if  he 
was  induced  not  to  defend,  in  consider- 
ation of  the  fact  that  no  evidence 
would  he  adduced  against  him,  the 
attorney  was  lialjle  as  for  gross  negli- 
gence. 

6  Grayson  v.  Wilkinson,  5  Smedes 
&  M.  (Miss.)  2G8;  Benton  V.  Craig,  2 
Mo.   198. 

7'hnt  the  client  failed  to  appear 
wlirn  her  case  was  called  and  did  not 
furnisli  her  counsel  with  a  list  of 
witnesses,  and  failed  to  appear  for 
trial,  did  not  warrant  her  counsel  in 
abandoning  h<'r  defense  without  liav- 
ing  previously  given  her  tiinrly  notic(> 
of  \\\h  intention  so  to  dii.  I'lown  i. 
Green,  i:j2  La.  10!)D,  i>2  So.  154. 


7  Grayson  r.  Wilkinson,  5  Smedes 
&  M.  (Miss.)   268. 

8  See   supra,    §    313. 

OBoynton  r.  Brown,  103  Ark.  513, 
145  S.  W.  242;  Lane  r.  Storke,  10  Cal. 
App.  347,  101  Pac.  937;  National 
Hollow  Brake  Beam  Co.  V.  Bakewell, 
224  Mo.  203,  123  S.  W.  561 ;  Gleason 
t'.  Clark,  9  Cow.  (N.  Y.)  57;  Jaquiss 
V.  Hagner,  72  N.  Y.  605 ;  Kissam  V. 
Bremerman,  44  App.  Div.  588,  61  N.  Y. 
S.  75;  Avery  t".  Jacob,  59  Super.  Ct. 
585  mem.,  15  N.  Y.  S.  564;  Young- 
man  r.  Miller,  98  Pa.  St.  196;  Ste- 
piiens  v.  White,  2  Wash.  (Va.)   203. 

10  See  supra,  §§  246-252. 

n  See  stipra,  §   139. 

12  England. — Hunter  f.  Caldwell, 
10  Q.  B.  69,  59  K.  C.  L.  69,  11  Jur.  770, 
affirmed  12  Jur.  285. 

Canada.— Konon  r.  Hill,  38  N. 
I5runs.  342. 

Alabama. — Walker  v.  Goodman,  21 
Ala.  647. 


§    ;J21]  LIABILITY    FOR    NF-GLIGEXCE.  665 

guarantee  the  sufficiency  of  every  pleading  prepared  by  him  or 
under  his  directions;  he  is  responsible  to  his  client  only  for  those 
mistakes  which  indicate  a  lack,  on  his  part,  of  the  attainments  and 
diligence  commonly  possessed  and  exercised  by  legal  practitioners 
of  ordinary  skill  and  capacity ;  "  nor  does  the  mere  fact  that  a 
complaint  proves  to  be  demurrable  show  that  the  attorney  who 
prepared  it  was  incompetent  or  negligent.^*  An  attorney  should 
not  be  held  liable  for  defective  pleadings  prepared  and  filed  by 
other  counsel,''*  unless,  of  course,  he  was  employed  to  examine  the 
pleadings,  or  to  take  entire  charge  of  the  cause,  and  had  sufficient 
time  to  inspect  the  pleadings,  and  to  remedy  defects  therein,  before 
going  to  trial.  In  such  instances  it  would  seem  that  an  attorney 
would  be  liable  if  loss  resulted  from  his  failure  to  exercise 
due  care  and  diligence  in  this  respect.^^  An  attorney  cannot  be 
held  liable  for  failure  to  plead  the  statute  of  limitations  where  an 
order  of  court  requires  an  answer  to  the  merits.^'''  The  exclusive- 
ness  of  an  attorney's  authority  with  respect  to  the  preparation  of 
pleadings  has  been  considered  heretofore. ^^ 

§  321.  Trial.  —  It  is  the  duty  of  an  attorney  who  has  been 
retained  to  conduct  the  trial  of  a  cause  for  either  party,  to  be 
prepared  for  this  purpose  when  the  trial  is  called.^^     He  is  re- 

Ca/i/ornia.— Garabert    V.    Hart,    44  &  F.    (Eng.)    681.     See  also  Stephens 

Cal.  542.  V.  White,  2  Wasli.   (Va.)   203. 

Indiana. — Walpole    V.    Carlisle,    32  16  See  generally  supra,   §  312. 

Ind.  415.  17  Thompson      v.      Dickinson,      159 

Kansas.— Burnette    v.    Elliott,     72  Mass.  210,  34  N.  E.  262. 

Kan.  624,  84  Pac.  374.  18  See  supra,  §§  247,  248,  249. 

Louisiana. — Thompson    v.    Lobdell,  19  Mercer  v.  King,  1  F.  &  F.  (Eng.) 

7  Rob.  369.  490:  Reece  v.  Righy,  4  B.  &  Aid.  202, 

Massachusetts. — Varnum     V.     Mar-  6  E.    C.  L.   451.     See   also  Hatch    v. 

tin,  15  Pick.  440.  Lewis,  2  F.  &  F.   (Eng.)   467,  7  H.  & 

Pennsylvania. — McWilliams  v.  Hop-  N.  367,  7   Jur.  N.  S.   1085. 

kins,  4  Rawle  382.  Under  the  English  practice,  an  at- 

13  Kissam   v.   Bremerman,   44  App.  torney    prepares    the    case    for    trial, 

Div.   588,   61   N.   Y.   S.   75.     And   see  and  turns  it  over  to  an  advocate  or 

supra,   §   313.  counsel  to  conduct  the  trial.     Where 

l4Kissara    v.   Bremerman,   44   App.  an    attorney    fails   to    hand    over   his 

Div.  588,  61  N.  Y.  S.  75.  briefs   to   counsel   in   time,   in   conse- 

15  Lowry  v.  Guilford,  5  C.  &  P.  234,  quence   of  which  the  latter   is  unpre- 

24  E.  C.  L.  295;  Fray  v.  Foster,  1  F.  pared   and   the  client   suffers   a   non- 


566 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


[§   322 


quired  to  be  in  attendance  and  personally  to  supervise  every  step 
of  the  proceeding ;  ^°  bnt  where  two  or  more  attorneys  are  engaged, 
and  the  contract  does  not  require  all  of  them  to  be  present  at  the 
trial  and  participate  therein,  they  may  agree,  on  consultation,  that 
some  of  their  number  need  not  attend.^  The  trial  must  be  con- 
ducted with  that  reasonable  degree  of  care,  skill,  diligence  and 
learning  which  is  to  be  expected  from  the  average  lawyer,  and 
which  has  been  considered  heretofore ;  ^  and,  failing  in  this  respect, 
the  attorney  must  answer  in  damages  to  the  extent  of  his  client's 
loss.^  It  has  been  held  that  an  attorney  is  not  necessarily  negli- 
gent in  permitting  an  incompetent  witness  to  testify,*  or  in  fail- 
ing to  take  an  exception  to  an  erroneous  ruling.^ 

§  322.  With  Respect  to  Judgments.  —  It  is  the  duty  of  an 
attorney  to  take  all  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  due 
entry  and  enrolment  of  a  judgment  to  which  his  client  is  entitled; 
and  his  neglect  of  such  duty  will  render  him  liable  for  any  loss 
sustained  by  the  client.^  So,  an  attorney  is  bound  to  obtain  judg- 
ment before  the  debtor's  property  is  encumbered,  where  by  the 
exercise  of  reasonable  skill  and  diligence  he  can  do  so.'^  An  attor- 
ney is  also  liable  for  any  loss  occasioned  by  confessing  judgment 


suit,  tlic  court  will  <^iant  a  new  trial, 
but  will  compel  the  attorney  to  pay 
all  tlie  costs  made  necessary  by  such 
proccH'diiig.  De  Roufigny  r.  Peale,  3 
Taunt.  484;  Townley  v.  Jones,  8  C. 
B.  N.  S.  289,  98  E.  C.  L.  289;  Haw- 
kins r.  Harwood,  4  Exch.  oOS,  7  Dowl. 
&,    L.   181. 

zciloly  r.  Built,  .3  B.  &  Ad.  350, 
23  E.  C.  L.  !)].  See  also  Mordecai 
r.  Solomon,  Say.  (Eng.)  172;  Cross- 
w.ll  /•.  Bryon,  U  Ves.  Jr.  (Eng.)   272. 

1  I'hillips  r.  Edsall,  127  III.  535,  20 
N.  K.  801.  See  also  Bust  r.  Larue, 
4  Litt.  (Ky.)  41  (i,  14  Am.  Dec.  172; 
I'^ggleston  V.  Boardman,  37  Mich,    li), 

2  Sec  supra,  §§  312,  314. 

8  Reece  r.  Bighy,  4  B.  &  Aid.  202, 
fi   K.  C.  L.  451;   Swannell  v.  Ellis,  1 


Bing.  347,  8  E.  C.  L.  542.  8  Moo.  C. 
PI.  340;  Godefroy  r.  Jay,  7  Bing. 
413,  20  E.  C.  L.  183;  Drais  r.  Hogan, 
50  Cal.  121;  Skillen  r.  Wallace,  3G 
Ind.  319;  Grayson  r.  Wilkinson,  5 
Smedes  &   M.    (Miss.)    268. 

4Garsed  r.  Boyd,  12  W.  N.  C. 
(Pa.)  10.  See  also  Breedlove  v.  Tur- 
ner, 9  Mart.  0.  S.   (La.)    354. 

6  Pearson  v.  Darrington,  32  Ala. 
227. 

6  Brown  r.  Bulkley,  14  N.  J.  Eq. 
451  ;  Griggs  V.  Drake.  21  N.  J.  L. 
109.  See  also  Farrand  r.  Land  & 
River  Imp.  Co.,  86  Fed.  393,  58  U.  S. 
App.   559,  30  C.   C.  A.   128. 

7  Moorman  v.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144, 
19   N.   E.   739. 


§    322]  LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE,  567 

against  his  client  without  authority,'  or  for  the  violation  of  in- 
structions as  to  the  entry  of  such  judgment.^  While  an  attorney 
has  a  large  discretionary  power  in  the  control  of  judgments  in 
favor  of  his  client/"  and  may  in  some  instances  agree  to  a  vaca- 
tion thereof/^  or  to  the  entry  of  a  remittitur/^  his  conduct  in  this 
respect  should  be  in  the  interest  of  his  client,  excepting,  perhaps, 
where  that  interest  would  conflict  with  his  obligations  as  an 
officer  of  the  court,  and  the  due  administration  of  justice. ^^ 
An  attorney  would  undoubtedly  be  liable  to  his  client  for  any  loss 
caused  by  his  unauthorized  or  negligent  allowance  of  the  vacation 
or  opening  of  a  judgment, ^^  or  for  the  compromise  or  release  there- 
of, ^^  or  for  negligently  permitting  a  judgment  to  be  recovered 
against  his  client. ^^  So,  after  judgment  has  been  duly  entered,  an 
attorney  is,  in  most  states,  impliedly  authorized  to  proceed  for  the 
enforcement  thereof/'''  and  liability  may  be  predicated  on  his  fail- 
ure to  do  so.^®  But,  in  some  jurisdictions,  the  rule  that  an  at- 
torney's implied  authority  ends  with  the  entry  of  final  judgment 
still  prevails ;  and,  of  course,  in  those  instances  he  could  not  be 
held  liable  for  failure  to  proceed  with  the  collection  of  the  judg- 
ment unless  he  was  retained  for  that  purpose. ^^  It  has  been  held 
that,  in  the  absence  of  a  special  agreement,  an  attorney's  duty 
does  not  extend  to  the  preservation  of  judgments.^" 

8  Denton  v.  Noyes,  6  Johns.   (N.  Y.)       see  supra,  §§  215-228,  274. 

296,  5  Am.  Dec.  237 ;   Cypliert  v.  Mc-  16  Newman  r.  Schiicck,  .58  111.  App. 

Clune,  22  Pa.  St.  195;  Jones  v.  Wil-  328;  Burnette  v.  Elliott,  72  Kan.  624, 

liamson,  5   Cold.    (Tenn. )    371.  34  Pac.  374. 

As   to   an   attorney's    authority    to  As  to  equitable  relief   where  judg- 

confess    or    consent    to    the    entry    of  ^^^^^^    j,^,,^    ^een    entered    against    a 

judgment,  see  snpra,  §§  268-270.  ^^^^^  through  the  negligence  or  mis- 

9  Thompson    v.    Pershing,    86    Ind.       j.  i        *   1  •       ii  co 

^  "  take    of    his   attorney,    see    supra,    §§ 

303. 

10  See  supra,  §§  268-280. 

11  See  supra,  §  272. 

12  See  supra,  §  273. 

13  See  supra,   §  284. 
H  Clussman  v.  Merkel,  8  Bosw.   (N.      '^o^"'  ^^  Mass.  316;  Crooker  v.  Hutch- 

Y.)    402.  inson,  1  Vt.  73. 

15  As  to  liability   for  unauthorized  ^0  See  supra,  §§  142,  276-^80. 

acts  generally,  see  supra,  §§  288-291.  20  McKowen  v.  Kernan,  3.5  La.  Ann. 

As  to  the  right  of  an  attorney  to  com-  331;    Cook    V.    Foster,    (Pa.)    6    Atl. 

promise  or  release  his  client's  claims,  150. 


244,  245. 

"See  supra,  §§  142,  276-280. 

18  Pennington  r.  Yell,    11   Ark.   212, 
52  Am.  Dec.  262 ;    Dearborn   f.   Dear- 


568  LIABILITY   FOR   xegligexce.  [§§    323,  324 

§  323.  As  to  Proceedings  for  the  Enforcement  of  Judg- 
ments. —  An  attorney  is  also  liable  to  his  client  for  any  loss  re- 
sulting from  his  negligence  in  the  enforcement  of  a  judgment;  ^ 
thus  when  an  attorney  acquiesces  in  a  mistake  made  by  the  sheriff, 
and  directs  further  proceedings  founded  thereon,  he  makes  the 
error  his  own,  and  is  answerable  for  the  loss  to  his  client  arising 
from  such  proceedings ;  ^  but  he  would  not  be  responsible  for  the 
officer's  mistake  if  he  had  not  acquiesced  therein.^  Ordinarily, 
however,  an  attorney's  duties  with  respect  to  the  enforcement  of 
judgments  are  fully  performed  when  he  causes  proper  process  for 
this  purpose  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  officer  whose  duty  it 
is  to  execute  it,  and  has  given  such  instructions  as  are  necessary 
for  the  guidance  of  such  officer.  The  attorney  need  not  attend 
personally  to  the  levy  or  sale  under  such  process ;  *  nor  does  the 
general  duty  of  an  attorney  require  him  to  search  for  property 
which  may  have  been  fraudulently  disposed  of,  or  to  institute  new 
and  collateral  proceedings  with  reference  to  such  property.^  So, 
negligence  cannot  be  predicated  on  an  attorney's  failure  to  levy 
an  execution  where  it  appears  that  the  judgiuent  debtor  had  no 
property  which  would  have  been  subject  thereto.^  The  authority 
of  an  attorney  with  respect  to  the  enforcement  of  judgments  has 
been  considered  heretofore.' 

§  324.  As  to  Attachments.  —  The  rules  heretofore  stated  ^ 
apply  also  to  attachments.  Thus  an  attorney  who  releases  an  at- 
tachment without  the  consent  of  his  client  is  liable  for  the  damage 
caused  thereby.'  So  it  has  been  held  that  an  attorney,  charged 
with  the  collection  of  a  demand,  having  prociu-ed  an  attachment 
to  be  made  of  the  debtor's  property,  which  was  replevied  from 

1  Phillips  V.  Bridj2:e,  ]]   Mass.  246;  262;  Gaines  v.  Becker,  7  111.  App.  315. 

Enterline  r.  Miller,  27  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  Sec    also    Holmes    v.    Peck,    1    R.    I. 

46.3.  242. 

ZEntcrline   r.  :VIill<T,  27  Pa.  Super.  5  :\Iorgan    v.   Ciddings,    (Tex.)    1    S. 

Ct.    463.  W.  .•Uit). 

SEnterlinc  r.  IMiller,  27  Pa.  Super.  6  Siddall   V.   Ilaiglit,    L32    Cal.    320, 

Ct.  4(;:{.      .  64   Pae.   410. 

4  Williams    ?;.    Reed,    3    Mason    40.i,  7  See   supra,   §§   276-280. 

2!)    I'ld.   (as.  No.   17,733:    Pennington  8  See   supra,   §   312   et  seq. 

V.    Veil,     11     Ark.    212,    52    Am.    Dec.  9  Walker   l'.  Goodman,  21   Ala.  647.. 


§§  3:25,  320]  liability  for  kegligence.  569 

the  possession  of  the  officer  making  the  attachment,  is  bound  to 
act  as  attoniov  in  the  defense  of  the  replevin  suit,  and  is  responsi- 
ble for  his  negligence  therein/"  But  tlie  mere  employment  of  an 
attorney  to  collect  a  claim  imposes  no  duty  on  him  to  execute  an 
affidavit  and  bond  in  attachment  for  his  client.^^ 

§  325.  Proceedings  for  Review.  —  As  a  general  rule,  the  im- 
plied authority  of  an  attorney  ends  with  the  entry  of  a  final  judg- 
ment in  the  trial  court;  and,  while  there  are  some  exceptions  to 
this  rule,''^  and  some  courts  recognize  an  attorney's  power  to  prose- 
cute appeal  or  error  without  special  authority  to  do  so,^^  it  has 
been  held  that  he  will  not  be  held  liable  for  failure  to  take  pro- 
ceedings for  the  review  of  a  cause  unless  he  has  been  directed,  and 
has  agreed,  to  do  so.''*  Where  he  has  been  retained  for  this  pur- 
pose, however,  it  is  the  attorney's  duty  to  take  all  proper  steps  to 
bring  the  cause  before  the  appellate  court,  and  his  failure  to  do 
so  will  render  him  liable  for  any  loss  suffered  by  his  client  as  a 
consequence  thereof. ^^ 

In  Collecting  Claims. 

§  326.  Failure  to  Exercise  Due  Care,  Skill  and  Diligence. 

—  An  attorney  to  whom  claims  have  been  intrusted  for  collection 
must  exercise  the  same  reasonable  degree  of  care,  skill  and  dili- 
gence as  is  required  in  the  performance  of  other  professional 
duties;  ^^  and  if  he  neglects  to  do  so,  he  wall  be  liable  to  his  client 
to  the  extent  of  the  loss  sustained  bv  reason  of  such  negligence.^''^ 

10  Smallwood  v.  Norton,  20  Me.  83,  perfect    an    appeal,    counsel    engaged 

37  Am.  Dec.   39.  in  the  same  case  are  not  liable.     Cor- 

iiFoulks  V.  Falls.  91  Ind.  315.  nelissen    r.    Ort,    132    Mich.    294,    93 

12  See  supra,  §  142.  N.  W.  617. 

13  See  supra,  §§  281-283.  16  See   supra,   §§   312-318. 

^4Hey  V.  Simon,   93   S.   W.  50,   29  T^T  England.— Kemp  v.  Burt,  4  B.  & 

Ky.  L.Rep.  315.  Ad.    424,    24    E.    C.   L.    93;    Williams 

"iSDrais    v.    Hogan,    50    Cal.    121;  V.  Gibbs,  5  Ad.  &  El.  208,  31   E.  C. 

Rosebud  Min.,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hughes,  16  L.  317. 

Colo.   App.   162,  64  Pac.   247;    Childs  A/a6anm.— Goodman   r.  Walker,  30 

V.    Comstock,    69    App.    Div.    160,    74  Ala.  482,  68  Am.  Dec.  134. 

N.   Y.    S.    643.  Arkansas. — Pennington    r.    Yell,    11 

U'here   a   solicitor    is   relied   on   to  Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 


570 


LIABILITY    rOK    MiULIGlCN'CE. 


[§   '320 


It  is  immaterial  that  the  loss  was  occasioned  by  the  negligence  of 
a  partner  or  other  person  who  subsequently  acted  for  the  attorney 
in  the  transaction  of  the  business.^^  Thus  the  attorney  will  be 
liable  for  negligence  in  failing  to  sue  out  the  necessary  process  ^^ 
and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  proper  officer,^"  or  to  bring  suit/ 
or  to  pursue  bail,^  or  to  take  any  other  step  essential  to  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  purpose  of  his  employment.^     So,   an  attorney 


California. — Drais  r.  Hogan,  50 
Cal.  121. 

Georgia. — Cox  v.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
144,  50  Am.  Dec.  386. 

Illinois. — Stevens  v.  Walker,  55 
III.  151. 

Indiana. — Reilly  v.  Cavanaiigh,  29 
Ind.  435  (taking  judgment  on  in- 
sufficient service)  ;  Foulks  r.  Falls, 
91   Ind.  315. 

Kentucky. — Eccles  r.  Stephenson,  3 
Bibb  517;  Townsend  v.  Ditto,  6  Ky. 
L.  Rep.  290. 

Louisiana. — McMicken  v.  Brent,  6 
Mart  N.  S.  249 ;  King  V.  Fourchy,  47 
La.  Ann.  354,  16  So.  814. 

Maine. — Smallwood  v.  Norton,  20 
Me.  83,  37  Am.  Dec.  39;  Wilson  r. 
Russ,  20  Me.  421. 

Massachusetts.— Y&rxwim  v.  Mar- 
tin,   15    Pick.   440;    Wilson    v.   Coffin, 

2  Cush.    316;    Dearborn    r.    Dearborn, 
1.5    Mass.    31 G. 

Mississippi. — Fitcli  c.  Scott,  3  How. 
314,   34   Am.   Dec.   86. 

Neic   York. — Smcdes    r.   Elmcndorf, 

3  Johns.  185. 

Pennsylvania. — Cox  r.  Livingston, 
2  Watts  &  S.  103,  37  Am.  Dec.  486; 
Riddle  r.  Poorman,  3  Pen.  &  W'.  224; 
Wiilii  r.  Beaver,  161  Pa.  St.  605,  29 
Atl.    114,  493. 

South  Carolina. — Hogg  /".  Martin. 
Riley   L.    156. 

Tennessee. — Gaar  r.  Hughes,  35  S. 
W.  1092. 

Texas. — Oldliain  v.  Sparks,  28  Tex. 


425;  Fox  v.  Jones,  4  W^illson  Civ. 
Cas.  Ct.  App.  g  29,  14  S.  W.  1007. 

Vermont. — Crooker  V.  Hutchinson, 
2   D.   Chip.  117. 

Virginia. — Rootes  v.  Stone,  2  Leigh 
650;  Staples  V.  Staples,  85  Va.  76,  7 
S.   E.   199. 

^Visconsin. — Ott  v.  Hood,  152  Wis. 
97,  139  N.  W.  762. 

18  See  supra,  §§  292-294. 

19  Pennington  v.  Yell,  11  Ark.  212, 
52  Am.  Dec.  262;  Dearborn  v.  Dear- 
born, 15  Mass.  316;  Crooker  v.  Hutch- 
inson,  2   D.   Chip.    (Vt.)    117. 

20  Phillips  r.  Bridge,  11  Mas-^.  246. 

1  King  V.  Fourchy,  47  La.  Ann.  354, 
16  So.  814;  Fitch  v.  Scott,  3  How. 
(Miss.)    314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86. 

Collateral  Suits. — Where  the  at- 
torney undertakes  the  collection  of  a 
debt,  it  does  not  become  his  duty  to 
institute  collateral  suits  against  the 
slieriff  for  failure  of  duty  in  the  serv- 
ice of  process,  without  special  in- 
structions so  to  do.  Pennington  r. 
Yell,   11   Ark.  212,  52  Am.   Dec.  262. 

2  Dearborn  l\  Dearborn,  15  !Mass. 
316;  Crooker  V.  Hutchinson,  1  Vt. 
73. 

3  Harrington  r.  Binns,  3  F.  L  F. 
(Eng.)  942;  Pennington  r.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262;  Fitch  r. 
Scott,  3  How.  (Miss.)  314,  34  Am. 
Dec.  86;  Read  v.  Pattiison,  11  Lea 
(Tcnn.)  430;  Fox  r.  Jones,  4  Willson 
Civ.  (as.  Ct.  App.  (Tex.)  §  29,  14 
S.  W.   1U07. 


§  326J 


LIABILITY     FOU    ^' KGLIGEXCE. 


571 


who  accepts  depreciated  iiionoy  is  lial)le  to  his  client  for  tlie  loss 
sustained;  ^  and  he  must  pay  his  client  in  specie,  if  it  is  denuind- 
ed,  uotwitlistandiiig  that  he  was  paid  in  pai)er  inoney.^  But  in 
the  absence  of  a  special  agreement  to  that  eli'ect,^  an  attorney  does 
not  guarantee  or  insure  the  collection  of  claims  placed  in  his 
hands;  '  if  he  acts  in  good  faith,  to  the  best  of  his  skill,  and  with 
a  reasonable  degree  of  care  and  diligence,  he  is  not  responsible  for 
failure  to  collect.'  So,  an  attorney  who  receives  and  holds  a  claim 
for  the  convenience  of  the  owner,  and  for  the  purpose  only  of  re- 
ceiving and  paying  over  the  money  paid  thereon,  no  compensation 
being  charged  or  received,  cannot  be  held  responsible  in  case  the 
debt  is  barred  by  limitation,^ 


AVhere  an  attorney  is  himself  the 
indorser  on  a  note  placed  in  his  hands 
for  collection,  he  is  bound  to  take 
judgment  promptly  against  both  the 
maker  and  himself.  And  if  by  delay 
the  right  to  judgment  against  him- 
self is  lost,  and  judgment  secured 
against  the  maker  only,  he  is  liable 
for  all  that  cannot  be  collected  out 
of  tlie  judgment  against  the  maker. 
Moorman  v.  Wood,  117  Tnd.  144,  19 
N.  E.  739. 

Extraordinary  Remedies.  —  One 
who,  although  not  an  attorney,  re- 
ceives a  claim  for  collection  and  gives 
a  receipt  "for  collection"  for  it,  as- 
sumes the  liabilities  of  an  attorney 
as  to  diligence,  but  he  is  not  liable 
for  having  failed  to  pursue  the  extra- 
ordinary remedy  of  attachment,  the 
owner  of  the  claim  having  neither 
made  affidavit  nor  given  bond.  Foulks 
V.   Falls,   93    Ind.   315. 

4  Botts  i'.  Crenshaw,  Chase  224,  3 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  1,690;  West  v.  Ball, 
12  Ala.  340;  Van  Vacter  v.  Brew- 
ster, 1  Smedes  &  M.  (Miss.)  400; 
Pidgeou  /;.  Williams,  21  Grat.  (Va.) 
251. 

SWickliflfe  r.  Davis,  2  J.  ,J.  Marsh. 
(Ky.)  69;  Lord  V.  Burbank,  18  Me. 
178. 


6  Morrill  r.  Graham,  27  Tex.  646; 
Gregory    v.   Gleed,   33   Vt.   405. 

7  Bougher  r.  Scobey,  23  Ind.  583 ; 
Kuhn  r.  Hunt.  2  Brev.  (S.  C.)  164; 
Tulej^  V.  Barton,  79  Va.  387.  And  see 
supra,  §  313. 

8  United  States. — Marsh  v.  V.'hit- 
more,  21  Wall.  178,  22  U.  S.  (L.  ed.) 
482. 

Alabama. — Stubbs  r.  Beene,  37  Ala. 
027;   Moore  v.  Winston,  66  Ala.  296. 

Georgia. — Nisbet  r.  Lawson,  1  Ga 
275. 

/nrZia  Ha.— Bougher  r.  Scobey.  23 
Ind.  583;  Nickless  v.  Pearson,  81  Ind. 
427;  Nickless  v.  Pearson,  84  Ind. 
602. 

Louisiana. — Hughes  c.  Boyce,  2  La. 
Ann.   803. 

Maine. — Odlin  r.  Stetson,  17  Me 
244,  35  Am.  Dec.  248 ;  Wilson  v.  Buss, 
20  Me.  421. 

South  Carolina. — Wright  v.  Ligon, 
Harp.  Eq.   166. 

Tennessee. — Read  v.  Patterson,  11 
Lea   430. 

Texas. — Morgan  v.  Giddings,  1  S. 
W.   369. 

Virginia. — Tuley  r.  Barton,  79  Va. 
387;  Staples  r.  Staples.  85  Va.  76, 
7  S.  E.  190. 

SMcAdoo   V.  Lummis,   43  Tex.   227. 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


[§  327 


§  327.  Failure  Properly  to  Care  for  Fund.  —  The  rule,  here- 
tofore considered,  to  the  elfect  that  attorneys  must  exercise  rea- 
sonahle  care,  diligence,  and  skill  in  the  execution  of  business  in- 
trusted to  their  professional  management,"  applies  with  respect 
to  the  care  of  money  collected  for  the  client.  Money  so  collected 
belongs  to  the  client.  It  has  been  said  that  the  attorney  occupies 
toward  such  money  the  relation  of  a  trustee,  so  long  as  he  chooses 
to  treat  and  preserve  the  fund  as  a  trust  fund,  and  that  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  he  will  be  liable  for  its  loss  are  precisely 
those  which  govern  in  the  case  of  any  other  trustee.^^  So,  in  some 
cases,  the  attorney's  duties  and  liabilities  in  this  respect  are  said 
to  resemble  those  of  an  agent ;  and  there  are  also  authorities  which 
distinguish  attorneys  from  both  agents  and  trustees.  There  is, 
however,  no  apparent  necessity  for  making  distinctions  of  this 
character.  An  attorney  at  law,  following  his  calling,  acts  as  an 
officer  of  the  court,  and  the  law  places  upon  his  conduct  toward 
his  client  a  sufficient  responsibility  to  make  him  answerable  as 
such,  irrespective  of  the  similarity  of  his  duties  with  those  who 
act  in  other  fiduciary  capacities.  It  is  well  settled  that  the  attor- 
ney must  exercise  due  care  for  the  safe-keeping  of  his  client's 
money,  and  if,  in  so  doing,  it  is  considered  necessary  or  prudent 
to  deposit  the  fund  in  bank,  the  attorney  fulfils  his  duty  only  by 
using  reasonable  care  and  prudence  in  the  selection  of  such  de- 
positary, and  by  making  the  deposit  in  the  name  of  his  client, 
or  in  his  own  name  as  attornev  for  the  client, ^^  and  notifving  his 


10  See  supra,  §  3]  2  et  seq.  See 
also  Gaar,  Scott  &  Co.  v.  HuL>lies, 
(Tenn.)    35  S.  W.  1092. 

"Xaltner  v.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  X.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Eep.  61,  wherein 
it  was  also  said  that  whenever  a 
trustee,  unless  properly  autliorized 
to  do  80,  puts  the  fund  in  such  shape 
as  to  invest  himself  with  a  legal 
title  to  it,  the  cestui  que  trust  lias  his 
election,  either  to  treat  the  fund,  ac- 
cording to  the  appearance  of  things, 
as  the  property  of  the  trustee,  and 
reganl  the  lattiT  as  liis  dchlor,  or  lie 
may  demand  tliat  the  title  be  trans- 
ferred  to  liira.     See  also,  supporting 


the  same  rule,  Robinson  v.  Ward,  2 
C.  &  P.  59,  12  E.  C.  L.  28,  R.  &  M.  274, 
21  E.  C.  L.  438;  Gilbert  v.  Welsch,  75 
Ind.  557. 

Acting  in  Dual  Capacity. — If  a 
party  acts  for  another  as  solicitor 
and  as  trustee,  and  receives  money 
in  tlie  latter  capacity,  it  is  not  by 
operation  of  law  eo  instante  trans- 
ferred to  his  hands  as  solicitor.  Scott 
r.  State,  2  Md.  284. 

i2Naltner  v.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  N.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  61;  Pidg- 
eon  /;.  Williams,  21  Grat.  (Va.)  251. 
And  see  Palmer  v.  Ashley,  3  Ark. 
75. 


327] 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


)73 


client  of  that  fact  with  reasonable  dilii»onec ;  ^^  although  formal 
notice  may  be  excused  if  the  client  has  actual  knowledge  of  the 
deposit;  so,  an  attorney  cannot  be  held  liable  for  failure  to  notify 
a  client  whose  whereabouts  are  unknown  or  inaccessible.^*  A 
bona  fide  compliance  with  this  rule  will  protect  the  attorney  not- 
withstanding the  subsequent  failure  of  the  bank.^^  An  attorney 
should  not  mingle  his  client's  money  with  his  own/^  nor  should 
such  money  be  deposited  in  bank  in  the  name  of  the  attorney 
individually;  ^'  the  fact  that  none  but  money  belonging  to  clients 
was  deposited  in  the  account  in  which  the  fund  was  placed  does 
not  alter  the  case.^^  The  controlling  consideration  is  whether  it 
was  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  attorney  without  anything  to 


13  Robinson  v.  Ward,  2  C.  &  P.  59, 
12  E.  C.  L.  28;  Pidgeon  c.  Williams, 
2]   Grat.   (Va.)   25]. 

14  Pidgeon  v.  Williams,  21  Grat. 
(Va.)  25],  wherein  it  was  said  that 
"even  when  the  client  is  not  informed 
of  the  fact,  circumstances  may  ex- 
cuse the  attorney  for  the  failure  to 
give  notice;  as,  for  example,  if  his 
client  has  left  the  country,  or  his 
whereabouts  is  not  known  to  the 
attorney,  or  he  has  not  the  means  of 
communicating  with  him  by  reason 
of  a  state  of  war,  the  relations  of 
one  being  with  one  of  the  belliger- 
ents, and  of  the  other  with  the  other 
belligerent,  so  that  intercourse  and 
intercommunication  between  them  is 
interrupted." 

15  Rogers  v.  Hopkins,  70  Ga.  454 ; 
Pidgeon  v.  Williams,  21  Grat.  (Va.) 
251.  See  also  Kimmell  v.  I5ittner, 
62  Pa.  St.  203;  Gaar,  Scott  &  Co. 
V.  Hughes,    (Tenn.)    35   S.   W.   1092. 

leXaltncr  r.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  X.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  61;  Dean 
V.  State,  147  Ind.  215,  46  N.  E.  528. 
See  also  Robinson  v.  Ward,  2  C.  & 
P.  .59.  12  E.  C.  L.  28:  Ansley  &  Co. 
V.  Anderson,  Adair  &  Co.,  35  Ga.  8; 


Norris  r.  Hero,  22  La.  Ann.  605; 
McAllister  v.  Com.,  30  Pa.  St.  536; 
Pidgeon  v.  Williams,  21  Grat.  (Va.) 
251;  Sargeant  r.  Downey,  49  Wis. 
524,   5   jST.  W.   903. 

"Naltner  r.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  N.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  01. 

In  Pidgeon  r.  W^illiams,  21  Grat. 
(Va.)  251,  it  appeared  that  an  at- 
torney, having  collected  a  claim,  de- 
ducted his  fees  and  deposited  the 
balance  in  a  bank,  which  was  then 
solvent  and  in  good  standing,  to  the 
credit,  not  of  his  private  account,  but 
of  an  account  called  tlie  collection 
account,  to  tlie  credit  of  which  ho  was 
in  the  habit  of  depositing  all  moneys 
collected  for  clients.  The  name  of 
the  client,  for  whose  benefit  the  de- 
posit was  made,  was  entered  in  the 
bank  book  opposite  the  entry  of  the 
deposit.  The  client  neglected  to  call 
for  his  money  for  some  years,  and 
until  after  the  bank  had  become  in- 
solvent. It  was  held  that  the  attor- 
ney was  not  liable  for  the  money  so 
deposited  and  lost. 

ISXaltner  r.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  N.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  61. 


574 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§  ;328 


designate  or  preserve  its  character  as  the  property  of  the  client.^' 
In  such  a  case,  the  good  faith  or  intention  of  the  attorney  is  in 
no  "vvay  involved.  Having  for  his  personal  convenience,  or  from 
whatever  motive,  deposited  the  money  in  his  own  name,  thereby 
vesting  himself  with  a  legal  title,  it  follows  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence, when  a  loss  occurs,  he  will  not  be  permitted  to  say,  as 
against  his  client,  that  the  fact  is  not  as  he  voluntarily  made  it  to 
appear.^"  But  the  deposit  of  his  client's  money  to  the  individual 
account  of  the  attorney  does  not,  in  itself,  amount  to  a  conversion.^ 

§  328.  Failure  to  Pay  Over  Proceeds.  — It  is  the  plain  duty 
of  an  attorney  to  notify  his  client  with  reasonable  diligence  of 
the  collection  of  money  in  his  behalf,^  and  promptly  to  pay  it 
over,'    w^here    in    view    of    all    the    facts    he    can   do   so  with 


iSNaltner  r.  Dolan,  108  Iiid.  500, 
S  K  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  61. 

20Naltner  v.  Dolan,  108  Ind.  500, 
8  N.  E.  289,  58  Am.  Rep.  61. 

1  Jackson  v.  Moore,  72  App.  Div. 
217,  76  N.  Y.  S.  164;  Peirce  v.  Pal- 
mer, 31  R.  I.  4.32,  Ann.  Cas.  1912B 
181.   77    At).   201. 

2Jett  r.  Hempstead,  25  Ark.  462; 
Spencer  i".  Smith,  45  Ind.  App.  17, 
87  JST.  E.  154;  Voss  V.  Bacliop,  5  Kan. 
59;  Riegi  r.  Phelps,  4  N.  D.  272,  60 
N.  W.  402;  Gaar,  Scott  &  Co.  r. 
Hughes,    (Tenn.)    35  S.  W.   1092. 

3  United  States. — In  re  Martin  & 
Co.,   167   Fed.   236. 

Alabama. — Cameron  r.  Clark".  11 
Ala.    259. 

Arl:ansas. — Rurke  r.  Stilhvell,  23 
Ark.    294. 

California. — McRaven  v.  Uam<  ron, 
82  Cal.  57,  23  Pac.  33. 

Georgia. — Nisbet  v.  Lawson,  1  Ga. 
275. 

Illinois. — Jacobson  v.  .(ones,  128 
111.    App.    55. 

Iwliana. —  Dawson  r.  Compton,  7 
Jilackf.    -121;     l!(.uj<li<T    t.    Scobcy,    IG 


Ind.  151;  Spencer  v.  Smith,  45  Ind. 
App.   17,  87  N.  E.  154. 

Kentucky. — Wellenbrock  v.  Speck- 
ert,  55  S.  W.  200,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
1369. 

Maine. — Newcastle  v.  Bellard,  3 
Greenl.    369. 

Michigan. — Robinson  r.  Hawes,  56 
Mich.  135.  22  N.  W.  222;  Reynolds 
r.  Cavanagh.  139  Mich.  387,  102  N. 
W.  986. 

Mississippi. — Grayson  r.  Wilkin- 
son, 5   Smedes  &  M.  268. 

Missouri. — Houx  v.  Russell,  10  Mo. 
246;  Sullivan  r.  Grace,  5  Mo.  App. 
594;  .Jenkins  r.  Clopton,  141  Mo. 
App.  74,  121   S.  W.  759. 

Xebraska. — See  JenTiin'^s  r.  Simp- 
son, 12  Neb.  558,  11  X.  W.  880. 

Neio  York. — Sackett  v.  Breen.  50 
Hun  602  mem.,  3  N.  Y.  S.  473; 
Caccia  r.  Tsecke,  123  App.  Div.  779, 
10S  X.  Y.  S.  542;  \Aebor  r.  :\Ian- 
hcinier,  23  Misc.  157,  50  X.  Y.  S. 
6(18;  .Matter  of  Keen,  39  Alisc.  374, 
79  N.  Y.  S.  857;  Marvin  v.  Elhvood, 
11    Paige   365. 


§  328] 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


675 


safet}'.'*  It  is  immaterial  that  the  money  was  paid  by  a  prnspeotive 
bankrupt  *  or  that  a  third  party  informally  (dainis  tlie  fuiid.^  Xor 
can  an  attorney  refuse  to  pay  over  the  proceeds  to  his  client  on 
the  ground  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  the  client  is  the 
owner  thereof,'  or  that  the  money  was  tendered  to,  and  refused  by. 
the  client  at  some  former  tirae.^  A  similar  liability  rests  ujjon 
an  attorney  to  notify  and  turn  over  any  property  other  tlian  money 
which  has  been  received  for  the  client.^  As  a  rule,  payment  must 
of  course  be  made  to  the  client/"  or  his  agent/^  or  in  the  manner 


Utah. — Everett  v.  Jones,  32  Utah 
489,  91   Pac.  360. 

Vermont. — Goodyear  Metallic  Rub- 
ber Shoe  Co.  V.  Baker's  Estate,  81 
Vt.  39,  15  Ann.  Cas.  1207,  69  Atl. 
160,    17    L.R.A.(N.S.)    667. 

Virginia. — Gathright  v.  Marshall, 
1  Hen.  &  M.  427. 

Wisconsin. — Cotton  v.  Sharpstein, 
14  Wis.  226,  80  Am.  Doc.  774;  Ott 
V.  Hood,  152  Wis.  97,  139  N.  W.  762. 

4  Marvin  v.  Ellwood,  11  Paige  (N. 
Y.)    365. 

5  In  re  Martin  &  Co.,  167  Fed.  236. 

6  Jacobson  v.  Jones,  ]28  111.  App. 
55;  Dunn  V.  Vannerson,  7  How. 
(Miss.)  580.  See  also  Boulden  v. 
Ilebel,  17  Serg.  &  R.    (Pa.)    312. 

Compare  Sims  v.  Brown,  6  Tbomp. 
&  C.  (N.  Y.)  5,  holding  that  there 
is  no  difference  between  the  nature 
and  the  extent  of  the  liability  of  an 
attorney  and  that  of  any  other  agent 
in  respect  to  moneys  collected  by  him 
for  his  principal  and  claimed  by  a 
third  person;  and  that  accordingly, 
where  an  attorney,  after  notice  from 
the  plaintiff  that  she  claimed  moneys 
collected  by  him  in  an  action  brought 
in  bclialf  of  one  A.,  paid  it  over  to 
his  client,  the  plaintiff  was  entitled 
to  recover  of  the  attornoy  the  amount 
so  paid  over.  See  also  Peyser  r.  Wil- 
cox, 64  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  525:  Mahler 


(;.  Hyman,  17  N.  Y.  S.  .jSS.    See  supra, 
this  section  note  4. 

7  Mahler  r.  Hyman,  17  N.  Y.  S. 
588. 

8  Clegg  /".  Baumberger,  110  Ind. 
536,  9  N.  E.   700. 

9  Cameron  v.  Clarke,  11  Ala.  2r)9; 
Commonwealth  Bank  v.  Patton,  4  .J. 
J.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  190;  Kcenan  r. 
Scott,   64  W.   Va.   137,   61    S.   E.   .S06. 

10  An  attorney,  who  has  received 
the  amount  of  a  note  left  with  him 
for  collection  by  a  client,  and  ap- 
]>lied  it  comformably  to  his  instruc- 
tions, although  the  note  was  not  ne- 
gotiable, and  was  payable  on  its  face 
to  a  third  person,  and  no  assign- 
ment to  the  client  indorsed,  is  not 
liable  to  the  party  who  was  appar- 
ently entitled  to  the  note,  but  of 
whose  actual  claim  to  the  money  due 
on  it  the  attorney  had  no  notice,  if 
it  appear,  that  the  party  himself 
liad  placed  the  note  in  the  hands  of 
tlic  client,  with  authority  to  collect 
it;  and  it  makes  no  difference,  that 
the  attorney  was  surety  for  the  debts, 
to  which,  by  the  direction  of  his 
client,  he  had  applied  the  amount 
collected.  Penny  r.  Caldwell,  1  Bailey 
L.    (S.  C.)    345. 

11  Wallace  r.  Peck,  12  Ala.  768: 
Fargo  Gaslight,  etc.,  Co.  v.  Greer,  10 
Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  164,  18  Ohio  Cir.  Ct. 
589. 


>76 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGEXCE. 


[§  328 


specified  by  them,^^  but  in  some  instances  payment  to  other  per- 
sons has  been  recognized.  ^^  Where  the  claim  has  been  collected 
by  one  to  whom  it  was  remitted  by  the  attorney  for  collection,  he 
may  pay  it  to  the  attorney  ;^*  but  it  would  seem  that,  in  the  absence 
of  a  beneficial  interest  in  the  claim,  the  attorney  cannot  sue  for 
the  fund  in  his  own  name.^*  It  has  been  held  that  the  owner  of 
the  claim  may  recover  from  one  to  whom  the  claim  was  remitted 
by  his  attorney  for  collection.^^  But  should  the  collector  assume 
the  responsibility  of  making  payment  to  the  owner,  both  he,  and 
the  attorney  who  remitted  the  claim  to  him,  will  be  liable  should 
payment  be  made  to  the  wrong  person.^''^  The  relation  in  which 
an  attorney  stands  to  his  client  will  not  permit  him  to  file  an  ordi- 
nary bill  of  interpleader  upon  every  claim  made  to  the  fund  which 
has  been  collected  by  him  for  his  client  ;^^  but  where  the  fund  has 
been  formally  claimed  by  a  third  party  the  attorney  is  warranted 
in  demanding  indemnity  from  his  client  before  he  turns  it  over  to 
him,  and,  should  the  client  fail  so  to  indemnify  him,  the  attorney 


I 


12  Long  r.  Sampson,  4  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
532;  Atkinson  v.  Howlett,  11  Ky.  L. 
Rep.  364;  Strohecker  v.  Hoffman,  19 
Pa.  St.  223;  Kimraell  v.  Bittnei,  62 
Pa.  St.  203;  Paxton  v.  Steele,  86  Va. 
311,   10   S.   E.   1. 

Compare  Nisbet  v.  Lawson,  1  Ga. 
275,  wherein  it  was  held  that  if  the 
attorney  collects  money  under  the 
direction  and  in  the  name  of  an 
agent,  knowing  tluit  it  belongs  to  the 
principal,  and  by  order  of  the  agent 
pays  it  in  discharge  of  debts  of  the 
agent,  it  is  not  a  discharge  of  the 
attorney  from  his  liability  to  his 
principal. 

13  Wlicn  a  person  jjlaccs  a  note  in 
the  haiuls  of  an  attorney  for  rolloc- 
tion,  and  takes  from  him  a  receipt 
fur  it  in  his  own  name,  hut  docs  not 
claim  it  as  his  own,  imr  any  lien 
upon  it.  Mini  the  note  itsi'lf  is  pay- 
able to  a  tliird  jicrson,  atnj  not  in- 
dorsed, a  payment  by  the  ntloinw  of 
the  jirof'ceils  of  tlie  note  to  tiic  f  ayeo 


will  discharge  him  from  all  liability 
to  the  person  who  placed  the  note  in 
his  hands.  Peck  v.  Wallace,  19  Ala. 
219. 

14  Tyler  r.  Cockrell,  ]07  S.  W.  799, 
32  Ky.   L.   Rep.   1126. 

15  Gunn  V.  Cantine,  10  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  387;  Herron  v.  Bullitt,  3  Sneed 
(Tenn.)  497.  See  also  Poor  v.  Guil- 
ford, 10  N.  Y.  273,  61  Am.  Dec.  749. 

16  Ex  p.  EdUards,  7  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.) 
155;  Robbins  r.  Heath,  11  Q.  B.  257 
note  b,  63  E.  C.  L.  257  note  b;  Han- 
ley  r.  Cassan.  ]1  Jnr.  (Eng.)  ]088; 
I  ronton  Rolling  ^lills  Co.  r.  Ross,  6 
I'.ush  (Ky.)  103;  Thacker  r.  Dun,  1 
.Mo.  App.  41 ;  Riegi  r.  Phelps,  4  N. 
1).  272.  60  X.  W.  402.  Compare 
Roljbins  r.  Fennell,  11  Q.  B.  248,  63 
!•:.  C.  L.  248.  See  also  Cobb  r.  Becke, 
G  Q.  B.  930,  51  E.  C.  L.  930. 

17  Lewis  r.  Peck,   10  Ala.   142. 

18  Marvin  t\  EUwood,  11  Paige  (N. 
Y.)     365. 


§    329]  LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE.  577 

may  seek  an  interpleader,  or  other  proceeding  in  the  nature  there- 
of, for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  ownership,^'  The  attorney 
may,  of  course,  deduct  his  lawful  fees  from  the  amount  col- 
lected ;  ^°  but  the  fact  that  the  amount  of  his  fees  is  in  dispute 
does  not  warrant  the  attorney  in  retaining  the  whole  sum  col- 
lected until  such  dispute  has  been  settled,^  although  it  seems  that 
he  may,  in  such  case,  retain  the  amount  claimed  as  fees.^  The 
garnishment  of  funds  in  an  attorney's  hands  has  been  considered 
elsewhere.^ 

§  329.  Failing  to  Follow  Instructions.  —  It  is  the  duty  of 
an  attorney  to  follow  the  instructions  of  his  client  with  reference 
to  the  collection  of  claims ;  and,  consequently,  he  is  liable  to  the 
client  for  any  loss  resulting  from  his  failure  to  do  so.*  Thus  an 
attorney,  when  so  instructed  by  his  client,  must  bring  suit,^  put 
the  claim  in  judgment,^  and  have  it  duly  registered.'  So,  an 
attorney  should  comply  with  his  client's  instructions  as  to  the 
mode  of  remitting  the  amount  collected.'  In  cases  of  doubt  it  is 
the  duty  of  an  attorney  to  advise  his  client  to  the  best  of  his  judg- 
ment, and  it  is  generally  the  wiser  course  for  the  client  to  act  upon 
the  advice  so  given ;  but  if  he  is  unwilling  to  do  so,  the  attorney 

19  Marvin  ?;.  Elhvood,  11  Paige  (N.  (Tex.)  §  29,  14  S.  W.  1007.  See 
Y.)  365;  Peyser  v.  Wilcox,  64  How.  also  Whitney  v.  Abott,  191  Mass. 
Pr.    (N.  ¥.)    525;   Mahler  v.  Hyman,       59,   77   N.  E.   524. 

17  N.  Y.  S.  588.  5  Cox  r.  Livingston,  2  Watts  &   S. 

20  Com.  V.  McKay,    (Ky.)    20  S.  W.       (Pa.)    103,   37   Am.  Dec.  486. 

276;    Tyler    v.    Cockrell,    107    S.    W.  But  see  Hogg  v.  Martin,  Pviley   L. 

799,  32  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1126;  In  re  Klein,  (S.    C.)     156,    wherein    it    was    held 

101  N.  Y.  S.  663.  that  an  attorney  cannot  be  guilty  of 

1  Conyers  v.  Gray,  67  Ga.  329 ;  Rob-  negligence  in  forbearing  to  bring  a 
inson  v.  Hawes,  56  Mich.  135,  22  N.  suit,  where  the  parties  had  agreed  to 
W.  222.  See  also  Hamel  v.  People,  leave  one  of  the  matters  in  dispute 
97   111.   App.  527.  to  arbitration,  the  decision  of  which 

2  See  Robinson  v.  Hawes,  56  Mich.  would  render  an  action  unnecessary. 
135,  22  N.  W.  222.  6  Moorman  v.   Wood,   117   Ind.   144, 

3  See  supra,   §   301.  19  N.  E.   739. 

4  Gilbert  r.  Williams,  8  Mass.  51,  7  Hett  v.  Pun  Pong,  18  Can.  Sup. 
5  Am.  Dec.   77;   Armstrong  v.  Craig,  Ct.  290. 

18  Barb.  (N.  Y.)  387;  Read  v.  Pat-  8  Grayson  r.  Wilkinson,  5  Suiedes 
terson,  11  Lea  (Tenn.)  431;  Fox  v.  &  M.  (Miss.)  268;  Kimmell  v.  Bitt- 
Jones,  4   Willson   Civ.   Cas.  Ct.   App.  ner,  62  Pa.  St.  203. 

Attvs.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 37. 


0  1 


LIABILITY    FOR    NEGLIGENCE. 


[§    -i" 


should  follow  the  instructions  of  his  client  so  far  as  the  rules  of 
law  may  permit.^  The  manner  of  conducting  litigation,  however, 
is  not  subject  to  the  client's  instructions. ^° 

§  330.  Effect  of  Authorizing  Attorney  to  Exercise  Discre- 
tion. —  Where  an  attorney  is  authorized  to  use  his  discretion  as 
to  what  is  best  to  be  done  in  the  interest  of  a  client  whose  claim 
he  has  undertaken  to  collect,  he  cannot  be  held  liable  for  a  failure 
to  succeed  unless  it  appears  that  such  failure  was  occasioned  by 
a  want  of  knowledge  of  the  elementary  principles  of  law  such  as 
every  practicing  attorney  is  presumed  to  understand,  or,  having 
such  knowledge,  the  failure  to  exercise  it.^^  This  rule  becomes 
important  in  view  of  the  fact  that  in  the  absence  of  instructions 
from  his  client,^^  an  attorney  must  be  deemed  to  be  authorized  to 
exercise  his  discretion,  as,  for  instance,  where  he  is  instructed  to 
do  the  best  he  can  with  a  claim. ■'^  Under  such  circumstances  an 
attorney  can  only  be  expected  to  act  prudently.'^*  So,  an  attorney 
is  not  liable  for  failing  to  institute  legal  proceedings  where,  having 
exercised  reasonable  care,  diligence,  and  skill  in  behalf  of  his  client, 
he  has  good  reason  to  doubt  the  propriety  and  expediency  of  such 
proceedings.^^ 


9  Nave  V.  Baird,  12  Ind.  319, 

10  See  supra,   §§   246-252. 

11  Morgan  v.  Giddings,  (Tex.)  1 
S.  W.  369.  See  also  Pennington  v. 
Yell,  11  Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262; 
Bennett  v.  Phillips,  57  Iowa  174,  10 
N.  W.  328;  Morrill  v.  Graham,  27 
Tex.  646;  Morgan  V.  Giddings,  (Tex.) 
1  S.  W.  369;  Hopkins  v.  Willard,  14 
Vt.   475. 


12  See  stipra,  §§  289,  329. 

13  Wright  V.  Ligon,  Harp.  Eq.  (S. 
C.)    166. 

H  Hopkins  r.  Willard,  14  Vt.  474. 

15  Morgan  v.  Giddings,  (Tex.)  1 
S.  W.  369;  Crooker  v.  Hutchinson,  2 
D.  Chip.   (Vt.)  117. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 
Actions  for  Unauthorized  and  Fraudulent  Acts, 


331.  For  Unauthorized  Acts. 

332.  For  Fraud. 


Actions  for  Negligence  Qenerally. 


333.  Form  of  Action. 

334.  Pleading. 

335.  Proof. 

336.  Defenses  Generally. 

337.  Statute  of  Limitations. 

338.  Damages. 

339.  Survival  of  Action. 


Actions  for  Negligence  in  Collection  of  Claims. 

340.  Pleading  and  Proof. 

341.  Defenses   Generally. 

342.  Statute  of  Limitations. 

343.  Damages. 

Actions  for   Money  Collected. 

344.  Right  to  an  Accounting. 

345.  Right  to  Sue. 

346.  Necessity  of  Making  Demand  Prior  to  Bringing  Suit. 

347.  Form  of  Action. 

348.  Pleading. 

349.  Proof. 

350.  Defenses  Generally. 

351.  Statute  of  Limitations. 

352.  Set-Off  and  Counterclaim. 

353.  Recovery. 

Summary  Proceedings. 

354.  Right  to  Proceed  Summarily  for  Recovery  of  Money. 

355.  Right  to   Proceed   Summarily   for   Other   Purposes. 

579 


580  e:s"foijcemext  of  liability.  [§  oZX 


356.  When   Right  Will  Bo  Exercised. 

357.  Professional   Relation   Must  Exist. 

358.  Institution  of  Proceeding. 

359.  Parties. 

360.  Evidence. 

361.  Hearing. 

362.  Defenses. 

363.  Merit  and  Good  Faith  Must  Be  Shown  in  Defense. 

364.  The  Order  and  Its  Enforcement. 


Actioiis  for  Unauthorized  and  Fraudulent  Acts. 

§  331.  For  Unauthorized  Acts. —  The  liability  of  an  attor- 
ney for  damage  caused  by  his  acts  outside  the  scope  of  his  au- 
thority may  undoubtedly  be  enforced  by  an  appropriate  action.^ 
But  the  mere  fact  that  an  attorney  acts  unauthorizedly  does  not 
render  him  liable ;  to  have  such  effect  the  client  must  suffer  loss 
or  injury  in  consequence  of  the  unauthorized  act.  Certainly  the 
client  would  have  no  cause  of  action  where  he  was  benefited  by  the 
attorney's  conduct.^  In  this  connection  it  is  advisable  to  consult 
other  portions  of  this  work  discussing  generally  an  attorney's 
authority  and  liability.  Thus  consideration  has  been  given  here- 
tofore to  the  general  scope  of  an  attorney's  authority,^  his  au- 
thority with  respect  to  the  compromise  and  release  of  his  client's 
claims  and  demands,*  and  his  power  to  appear  for  litigants,^  and 
to  conduct  their  litigation.®  So,  also,  in  other  places  throughout 
this  work  there  will  be  found  a  discussion  of  the  dealings  be- 
tween attorney  and  client  generally,'^  the  attorney's  rights  and 
duties  with  respect  to  the  acquisition  of  interests  adverse  to  those 
of  his  client/  and  the  representation  of  conflicting  interests.^  At- 
tention has  also  been  called  to  th(^  liability  of  an  attorney  for 
l)r('a('li   of   his   dnties   towards   his  client. ^°   for   his   unauthorized 

1  Vootli     r.    McEiU-hcn,    181     N.    Y.  4  See  supra,   §§   215-228. 

28.    2   Ann.   Cas.    601.    7.?    \.    E.    488.  5  See  supra,  §§  229-245. 

See  also  tlie  cases  citcil  iit  the  various  6  See  supra,   §§   24G-283. 

cross-references  given  tlirougltout  this  7  See  supra,   §§    152-103. 

section.  8  See    supra,    S§    1G4-173. 

ZIMiillips    r.    Rliodes,   2    Colo.   App.  9  See    supra,    §g    174-182. 

70,  29   Viu:   1011.  10  See   supra,   §§   284-287. 

3  See   supra,   §§    199-214. 


§    332]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY.  581. 

acts/^  and  for  the  acts  of  his  partners,  substitutes,  clerks,  and 
assistants. ^^  Consideration  has  also  been  given  to  the  attorney's 
liability  to  third  persons,^'  and  for  costs  and  ex2)enses.^* 

§  332.  For  Fraud.  —  Akin  to  the  liability  spoken  of  in  the 
preceding  section  is  that  occasioned  by  the  attorney's  fraud.  Loss 
or  injury  so  sustained  by  the  client  are  not  only  recoverable  in  an 
action  at  law,^^  but  a  bill  in  equity  will  lie  to  remedy  the  Avrong.^® 
Thus  a  court  of  equity  will  entertain  a  bill  brought  to  investigate 
fraudulent  conduct  in  transactions  between  an  attorney  and  client, 
and  to  declare  such  transactions  void  if  found  to  be  unfair.^'  So, 
equity  has  jurisdiction  of  a  bill  by  a  client  against  his  attorney 
charging  that  the  latter,  in  settling  a  claim  against  the  client, 
fraudulently  procured  and  retained  a  greater  sum  from  the  client 
than  was  paid  to  settle  the  claim."  The  fraud  must,  of  course, 
be  duly  alleged  and  ])roved.^^  But  the  well-established  rule  that 
the  burden  is  upon  the  attorney  to  establish  affirmatively  that  his 
transactions  with  his  client  were  fair  and  just;  that  his  client 
acted  on  full  information  of  all  the  material  circumstances,  and 
til  at  he  did  not  take  undue  advantage  of  his  client's  complacency, 
confidence,  ignorance  or  misconception,  is  applicable  in  cases  of 
this  character.^"    IsTor  does  the  statute  of  limitations  begin  to  run 

"See  supra,   §§   288-291.  le  Brainard  v.  Singo,  164  Ala.  353, 

12  See  supra,  §§   292-294.  51    So.    522;    Maloney    r.    Terry.    70 

13  See  supra,  §§  295-302.  Ark.    189,    6G    S.    W.    919,    72    S.    W. 

14  See  supra,   §§   305-311.  570;    Kelly    r.   Allin,   212   Mass.   327, 

15  Roberts   v.  Gates.  146  Mich.  169,  99  N.  E.  273:    Broyles   r.  Arnold,  11 
109    N.    W.    264;    Currey   r.    Butclier,  Hoislc.    (Tenn.)     484. 

37    Ore.    380,    61    Pac.    631  ;    Allen    v.  17  Robinson    r.    Sharp,    201    111.    86, 

Frawley,  106  Wis.  638.  82  N.  W.  593.  66  N.  E.  299,  affirming  103  111.  App. 

Under   the   N.    Y.    Code   Civ.    Pro.,  239. 

§    70,   making    an    attorney    liable    in  18  Maloney    v.   Terry,    70   Ark.    189, 

treble  damages  to  one  injured  by  his  66  S.  W.  919,  72  S.  W.  570. 

deceit   or    collusion,    such    misconduct  19  Brainard  r.  Singo,  164  Ala.  353, 

must   impede  or  prejudice  the   rights  51     So.    522;    Currey    i:    Butcher,    37 

or  remedies  of  the  injured  party,  and  Ore.  380,  61  Pac.  631. 

must   be  adjudicated    in   the   proceed-  20  Couso    r.    Ilorton,    23    App.    Div. 

ing.     Franzone     v.     Tumminclli,     67  198,  49  N.  Y.  S.  132. 
Misc.  549,  123  N.  Y.  S.  455.     See  also 
Looff  V.  Lawton,  14  Hun  588. 


582 


ENFOSCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


l\ 


against  the  client  until  he  knows,  or  should  have  known,  of  the 
fraud.^^  In  other  places  consideration  has  been  given  to  the  rights 
and  duties  of  an  attorney  in  respect  to  the  dealings  between  him- 
self and  his  client/  and  the  attorney's  liability  for  the  breach  of 
his  duties  toward  his  client.^  Attention  has  also  been  given  here- 
tofore to  the  acquisition  by  the  attorney  of  interests  adverse  to 
those  of  his  client/  and  to  the  representation  of  conflicting  inter- 
ests.* 

Actions  for  Negligence  Generally. 

§  333.  Form  of  Action.  —  It  is  true  that  an  action  against 
an  attorney  for  negligence  originates  in  contract,  and  at  common 
law  the  plaintiif  might  sue  either  in  assumpsit  or  in  trespass  on 
the  case,  though  the  latter  form  of  action  was  usually  adopted.^ 
Where  common-law  forms  of  practice  still  prevail  either  of  these 
remedies  may  be  employed ;  in  code  states  the  substitutes  there- 
for may  be  used.     A  bill  in  equity  does  not  lie  for  this  purpose.^ 


21  Morgan  r.  Tenner,  83  Pa.  St. 
305. 

iSee  supra.   §§  152-163. 

2  See   supra,    §§    284-287. 

3  See  supra,   §§   264-173. 

4  See  supra,  §§  174-182. 

5  England. — Swannell  r.  Ellis,  1 
Bing.  347,  8  E.  C.  L.  542;  Legge  v. 
Tucker,  1  H.  &  X.  500;  Russel  V. 
Palmer,   2    Wils.   C.   PI.   325. 

Alabama. — Cook  v.  Bloodgood,  7 
Ala.  683;  Walker  v.  Goodman,  21 
Ala.  647.  See  also  Pinkston  v.  Ar- 
rington,  98  Ala.  489,   13   So.   561. 

Arkansas. — Sevier  v.  Ilolliday,  2 
Ark.   512. 

Georgia. — O'Barr  v.  Alcxnnder,  37 
Ga.    195. 

Illinois. — Goldzier  v.  Poole,  82  111. 
App.  469;  Hill  r.  Montgomery,  84 
111.  App.  300,  affirmed  184  111.  220.  56 
N.  E.  320.  See  also  Morrison  v.  Bur- 
nett, 56  111.  App.   129. 


Maine. — Stimpson  v.  Sprague,  6 
Greenl.    470. 

Massachusetts. — Salisbury  v.  Gour- 
gas,  10  Mete.  442;  Wilson  v.  Coffin, 
2  Cush.  316;  Dearborn  v.  Dearborn, 
15  Mass.  316. 

Oregon. — Currey  v.  Butcher,  37 
Ore.  380,  61  Pac.  631. 

Rhode  Island. — Holmes  v.  Peck,  1 
R.  I.  242. 

Vermont. — Crooker  v.  Hutchinson, 
1  Vt.  73. 

Book  account  does  not  lie.  Smal- 
ley  V.  Soragen,  30  Vt.  2. 

6  British  Mut.  Invest.  Co.  v.  Cob- 
bold,  L.  R.  19  Eq.  (Eng.)  627,  44  L. 
J.  Ch.  332,  23  W.  R.  487;  Williams 
V.  Reed,  3  Mason  405,  29  Fed.  Cas. 
No.  17,733;  Crothers  v.  Lee,  29  Ala. 
337 ;  Nancrede  f.  Voorhis,  32  N.  J. 
Eq.    524. 


§  334] 


EXFOIJCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


^  Q  •'. 


§  334.  Pleading.  —  The  pleadings  in  actions  for  negligence 
against  attorneys  are,  of  course,  governed  by  the  principles  which 
apply  in  other  actions  of  that  character.  Thus  it  is  absolutely 
essential  that  the  declaration,  complaint,  petition  or  other  initia- 
tory  pleading  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  should  set  out  a  suffi- 
cient statement  of  facts  to  show  a  cause  of  action  ;  '^  it  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  plead  conclusions  of  law  or  the  conclusions  of  the  pleader, 
unsupported  by  allegations  of  issuable  facts.*  The  facts  which 
constitute  negligence  have  been  fully  considered  heretofore.^  in 
order  to  show  that  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  existed  be- 
tween the  parties,  the  retainer  of  the  attorney  in  his  professional 
capacity,  by  or  for  the  plaintiff,  must  appear ;  ^°  but  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  aver  that  a  retaining  fee  was  paid.^^  In  the  subjoined 
notes  will  be  found  cases  wherein  the  declaration,  or  other  such 
pleading,  was  held  to  be  sufficient  in  charging  the  defendant  at- 
torney with  unskillful  management  of  litigation, ^^  neglecting  to 


7  Indiana. — Batty  i\  Font,  54  Ind. 
482. 

Kentucky. — Anderson  r.  Conklin,  11 
Ky.  L.  Rep.   183. 

Massachusetts. — Wilson  v.  Coffin,  2 
Ciisli.  316. 

Missouri. — National  Hollow  Brake 
Beam  Co.  r.  Bakewell,  224  Mo.  203, 
123    S.   W.   561. 

New  York. — Malone  r.  Sliermau,  49 
Super.  Ct.  530;  Elder  v.  Bogardus, 
Hill   &   D.   Supp.   116. 

Pennsylvania. — Keir  r.  Quin,  12 
W.   N.  C.   370. 

South  Dakota. — Jones  v.  Winsor, 
22  S.  D.  480,  118  N.  W.  716. 

Tennessee.— Bviice  r.  Baxter,  7 
Lea  477. 

8  National  Hollow  Brake  Beam  Co. 
r.  Bakewell,  224  Mo.  203,  123  S.  W. 
561. 

9  See   sxtpra,   §§   312-330. 

10  Elder  v.  Bogardus,  Hill  &  D. 
Supp.  (N.  Y.)  116;  Stephens  v. 
White,  2  Wash.   (Va.)    203. 

See  supra,  §§   153,   172. 


11  Eccles  V.  Stephenson,  3  Bibb 
(Ky.)  517;  French  r.  Armstrong,  80 
N.  J.  L.  152,  76  Atl.  336. 

An  allegation  tliat  the  plaintiff 
then  and  there  employed  the  defend- 
ant, sufficiently  shows  a  considera- 
tion for  the  attorney's  engagement. 
Stephens  r.  White,  2  Wash.  (Va. ) 
203. 

But  see  Cavillaud  v.  Yale,  3  Cal. 
108,  58  Am.  Dec.  388,  wherein  it  was 
said  that  while  a  declaration  against 
an  attorney  need  only  aver  generally 
that  he  was  retained,  still  if  it  allege 
that  he  was  retained  in  consideration 
of  certain  reasonable  fees  and  re- 
wards to  be  paid  him,  without  stat- 
ing that  such  paj'ment  was  to  le  at 
a  future  time,  it  must  also  aver 
payment. 

12  Walker  v.  Goodman,  21  Ala. 
647;  Skillen  r.  Wallace,  36  Ind.  319; 
Jones  r.  White,  90  Ind.  255;  Wilson 
V.  Coffin,  2  Cush.    (Mass.)    316. 


584 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  335 


file  a  declaration,^^  the  negligent  commencement  ^*  and  the  im- 
proper dismissal  of  a  siiit,^*  negligently  dismissing  the  levy  of  a 
writ  of  attachment, ^^  negligent  preparation  of  papers,^''^  failing  to 
take  proceedings  for  review/*  giving  improper  advice/^  giving 
negligent  advice  as  to  the  making  of  a  loan,^°  negligent  examina- 
tion of  title/  neglecting  to  learn  of  the  existence  of  incumbrances/ 
failure  to  foreclose  a  mortgage  within  a  reasonable  time/  and 
failure  to  disclose  the  existence  of  material  facts.* 

§  335.  Proof.  —  In  suits  for  the  recovery  of  damages  because 
of  the  negligence  of  an  attorney,  the  burden  rests  with  the  plain- 
tiil  to  prove  every  essential  element  of  his  cause  of  action  ^  as 


13  Stephens  v.  W\ute,  2  Wash. 
(Va.)    203. 

14  Evans  v.  Watrous,  2  Port.  (Ala.) 
205. 

15  Evans  v.  Watrous,  2  Port.  (Ala.) 
205. 

16  Walker  v.  Goodman,  21  Ala.  647. 

17  Jones   v.   White,  90   Ind.  255. 

18  Rosebud  Min.  &  Mill  Co.  v. 
Hughes,  16  Colo.  App.  162,  64  Pac. 
247. 

19  Cochrane  v.  Little,  71  Md.  323, 
18   Atl.   698. 

20  Gardner  v.  Wood,  37  Misc.  93, 
74  X.  Y.  S.  7.50. 

1  Thomas  r.  Schee,  80  Iowa  237, 
45  X.   W.  539. 

2  Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc,  v.  Diicker, 
111  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  671,  23  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    1073. 

3  French  v.  Armstrong,  80  N.  J. 
L.   152,  76  Atl.   336. 

4  French  r.  Armstrong,  80  X.  J.  L. 
152,  76  Atl.  336:  Gardner  r.  Wood, 
37   Misc.  93,  74  X,  Y.  S.   750. 

6  Enf/land.  —  See  Harrington  v. 
Hinns,  3  F.  &  F.  942. 

danada. — See  O'Donohoe  r.  Whitty, 
2  Ont.  424,  affirmed  20  (an.  L.  J. 
146. 

I'nilfd   Slates. — Snviluiii    r.    Vance, 


2  McLean  99,  23  Fed.  Cas.  Xo.  13,657; 
Spangler  v.  Sellers,  5  Fed.  882;  Eber- 
hardt  v.  Harkless,  115  Fed.  816. 

Alabama. — Hair  v.  Glover,  14  Ala. 
500. 

Arkansas. — Palmer  v.  Ashley,  3 
Ark.  75;  Pennington  r.  Yell,  11  Ark. 
212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262;  Jett  v.  Hemp- 
stead,  25   Ark.   462. 

Georgia. — Jenkins  v.  Stephens,  60 
Ga.  216. 

Kentucky. — Eccles  v.  Stephenson,  3 
Bibb  517,  followed  Wickliffe  v.  Davis, 
2   J.   J.   Marsh.   69. 

Louisiana. — Spiller  v.  Davidson,  4 
La.   Ann.   171. 

Massachusetts. — Thompson  v.  Dick- 
inson, 159  Mass.  210,  34  X.  E.  262; 
Keith  i\  Marcus,  181  Mass.  377,  63 
X.  E.   924. 

Minnesota. — Joy  v.  INIorgan,  35 
:Minn.  184,  28  X.  W.  237. 

Mississippi. — Hoover  v.  Shackle- 
ford,  23   Miss.   520. 

Xehraska. — Prusa  v.  Everett,  86 
Xeb.  450,   125  X.  W.   1076. 

Xcio  York. — Seymour  r.  Cagger,  13 
Ihin  29:  Lamprecht  r.  Bien,  125  App. 
Div.  811,  no  X.  Y.  S.  128;  Cleveland 
?'.  Cnmiwel],  128  App.  Div.  237,  112 
X.   V.   S.   (i43. 


§  335] 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


585 


alleged.^  Thus,  to  charge  an  attorney  with  negligence  in  not  set- 
ting up  in  defense  facts  coninumicated  to  him  by  his  client,  there 
must  be  evidence  not  only  of  the  existence  of  the  facts,  but  also 
that  they  were  susceptible  of  proof  at  the  trial  by  the  exercise  of 
proper  diligence  on  the  part  of  the  attorney.'  The  rule  that  an 
attorney  is  bound  to  show  fairness  in  his  dealings  with  the  client 
has  no  application  here.*  Negligence  on  the  part  of  the  attorney 
is  not  to  be  presumed ;  ^  but,  in  cases  of  this  character,  he  is  en- 
titled to  the  benefit  of  the  rule  that  every  one  shall  be  presumed 
to  have  discharged  his  legal  and  moral  obligations  until  the  con- 
trary shall  be  made  to  appear."  It  is  incumbent  on  the  plaintiff 
to  prove  that  the  relation  of  attorney  and  client  existed  between 
himself  and  the  defendant  with  respect  to  the  subject-matter  of 
the  litigation.^^    The  ordinary  rules  as  to  the  admission  of  evidence 


Tennessee.  —  Bruce  v.'  Baxter,  7 
Lea  477. 

Yirginia. — Staples  v.  Staples,  85 
Va.  7G,  7  S.  E.  199. 

6  Hessin  v.  Heck,  88  Ind.  449 ;  Ren- 
kert    V.    Title    Guaranty    Trust    Co., 

102  Mo.  App.  267,  76  S.  W.  641 ;  Hall 
V.  Strode,  19  Neb.  658,  28  N.  W.  312. 

'Hastings  v.  Halleck,  13  Cal.   203. 

8  Schreiber  v.  Heath,  103  App.  Div. 
364,  92  N.  Y.  S.  1043. 

^Alabama. — Pearson  v.  Darrington, 
32  Ala.  227. 

Arkansas. — Pennington  v.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Illinois. — Priest  v.  Dodsworth.  235 
111.  613,  14  Ann.  Cas.  340,  85  N.  E. 
940. 

Indiana. — Doe  v.  Brown,  8  Blackf. 
443. 

loica. — Cullison  v.  Lindsay,  108 
Iowa  124,  78  N.  W.  847. 

Maine. — Mattocks  v.  Young,  66  Me. 
459. 

Xehrasla. — White  v.  Merriam,  16 
Neb.  96,  19  N.  W.  703;  Reumping  r. 
Wharton,  56  Neb.  536,  76  N.  W.  1076. 

Yc»;     York. — Schreiber     r.     Heath, 

103  App.  Div.  364,  92  N,  Y.  S.  1043. 


Rhode  Island. — Holmes  c.  Peck,  1 
R.  I.  242. 

South  Carolina. — Rice  r.  Bamberg, 
59  S.  C.  498,  38  S.  E.  209. 

Texas. — Merritt  V.  Clow,  2  Tex. 
582. 

Virgima. — Staples  v.  Staples,  85 
Va.  76,  7  S.  E.  199. 

Wisconsin. — Thomas  v.  Steele,  22 
Wis.  207;  Andrews  v.  Thayer,  30  Wis. 
228;  Beem  v.  Kimberly,  72  Wis.  343, 
39  N.  W.  542. 

1ft  Pennington  (;.  Yell,  11  Ark.  212, 
52  Am.  Dec.  262;  Priest  v.  Dods- 
worth, 235  111.  613,  14  Ann.  Cas.  340, 
85  N.  E.  940;  Holmes  v.  Peck,  1  R.  I. 
242;  Staples  v.  Staples,  85  Va.  76,  7 
S.  E.  199. 

11  England.— Y\s\\  v.  Kelly,  17  C.  B. 
N.  S.  194,  112  E.  C.  L.  194;  Sawyer 
V.  Goodwin.  1  Ch.  D.  351,  45  L.  J.  Ch. 
289;  Dartnall  v.  Howard,  4  B.  &  C. 
345,  10  E.  C.  L.  351,  6  Dowl.  &  R. 
438.  See  also  Aldis  v.  Gardner,  1  C. 
&  K.  564,  47  E.  C.  L.  564 ;  Langdon  v. 
Godfrey.  4  F.  &  F.  445. 

Scotland. — Robertson  V.  Fleming,  4 
Macq.  H.  L.  167. 

United       States. — National        Sav. 


iSG 


EXFORCEMEXT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§    ooij 


are  applicable.^^  In  an  action  against  an  attorney  for  giving  im- 
proper advice,  it  is  competent  to  prove  by  the  testimony  of  other 
lawyers  whether,  in  their  opinion,  the  advice  given  by  the  defend- 
ant was  snch  as  a  prudent,  careful  lawyer,  of  ordinary  capacity 
and  intelligence,  would  or  ought  to  have  given,  under  the 
circumstances.^^  A  conflict  of  evidence  on  the  question  of  the 
attorney's  negligence  presents  a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury,^* 
but  where  the  facts  are  ascertained  the  question  is  one  of  law  for 
the  court.  ^^ 

§  336.  Defenses  Generally.  —  Where  the  plaintiff  show's  a 
prima  facie  cause  of  action,  the  law  casts  upon  the  attorney  the 
burden  of  jDroving  an  adequate  excuse,^^  and  he  may  establish,  in 
his  defense,  any  facts  which  tend  to  overthrow  the  plaintiff's 
case."    Thus  where  an  attornev  is  charged  with  failure  to  attend 


Bank  v.  Ward,  100  U.  S.  195,  25  U. 
S.  (L.  ed.)  621;  Robertson  v.  Chap- 
man, ]52  U.  S.  673,  14  S.  Ct.  741,  38 
U.  S.   (L.  cd.)   592. 

Alabama. — See  Goodman  r.  Walker, 
30  Ala.  482,  68  Am.  Dec.  134. 

California. — Buckley  v.  Gray,  1]0 
Cal.  339,  42  Pac.  900,  52  Am.  St.  Eep. 
88,   31  L.E.A.   862. 

Kansas. — See  Cory  v.  Wirtli,  21 
Kan.   ]0. 

Maine. — See  Smallwood  r.  Norton, 
20  Me.  83,  37  Am.  Dec.  39. 

Minnesota. — See  Ryan   r. 
Minn.  394,  29  N.  W.  51. 

Mississippi. — Grayson     r 
son,  5  Smedes  &  M.  26S. 

Neio  Jersey. — Kalil  r.  Love,  37  N. 
J.  L.  5. 

\eio  York. — Clevclainl  r.  Crom- 
well, 128  App.  mw  •J:i7.  n-2  N.  Y.  S. 
043. 

12  National  Sav.  Bank  r.  Wanl,  lf)0 
U.  S.  195,  25  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  (J21  ; 
Hinckley  r.  Krug,  (Cal.)  34  Pac.  118 ; 
Lawall  r.  Groman.  ISO  Pa.  St.  532, 
37  Atl.  98,  57  Am.  St.  Kcp.  (JiiJ. 


Long,   35 
Wilkin- 


13  Cochrane   v.   Little,   71   Md.   323, 

18  Atl.   698. 

^'^  Alabama. — Evans  v.  Watroiis.  2 
Port.  205;  Pinkston  v.  Arrington,  98 
Ala.  489,  13  So.  561. 

^Ir/.-oHsas.— Pennington  r.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Maryland. — -Cochrane  i'.  Little,  71 
Md.  323,  IS  Atl.  698. 

Neio  Yorlc. — Abeel  v.  Swann,  21 
Misc.  677,  47  N.  Y.  S.  1088;  O'Hara  r. 
Bropliy,  24  How.  Pr.  379;  Stein  r. 
Kremer,  112  N.  Y.  S.  1087. 

Pennsylvania. — Ilamsher  v.  Kline, 
57  Pa.  St.  397. 

South  Carolina. — Hogg  r.  Martin, 
Riley  L.  150. 

Texas. — Jinks  r.  Moppin,  80  S.  W. 
390;  Patterson  r.  Fra/er,  100  Tex. 
1 03,  94  S.  W.  324,  reversing  93  S.  W. 
14(i. 

ISGamhert  v.  Hart,  44  Cal.  542. 

16  Moorman  r.  Wood,  117  Ind.  144, 

19  N.  E.  739. 

17  Barney  r.  Fuller,  133  N.  Y.  605, 
30  N.  E.  1007. 


§    336]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY.  5S7 

to  the  defense  of  a  case  which  he  was  retained  to  conduct,  he  may 
show,  as  a  cause  for  his  faihire,  that  the  client,  although  so  re- 
quested, neglected  to  instruct  him  as  to  what  defense  could  he 
made.^*  So  the  defendant  may  prove  that  the  client  is  himself 
a  lawyer,  and  that  he  had  made  an  indejiendcut  examination  of  the 
law  relating  to  the  cause ;  ^^  or  that  other  counsel  were  relied  upon 
to  transact  the  business  in  connection  with  which  the  charge  of 
negligence  has  been  made;^°  or  that  the  negligence  with  which 
he  is  charged  was  the  result  of  a  mistaken  view  of  a  doubtful  legal 
question.^  So,  in  an  action  against  an  attorney  for  negligence  in 
losing  the  evidence  of  a  debt,  it  is  competent  to  show  that  the 
plaintiff  successfully  pursued  another  remedy.^  Where  the  alleged 
negligence  consists  of  a  failure  to  file  a  declaration,  or  other  such 
pleading,  the  attorney  may  prove  that  he  was  not  retained  in  the 
cause  in  season  to  have  filed  it.^  And  where  an  attorney  was  liable 
for  failure  to  file  a  building  contract,  it  was  held  to  be  competent 
to  show  in  defense  that  the  owner,  who  had  been  required  to  pay 
a  subcontractor's  claim,  had  discharged  the  builder  who  was  pri- 
marily liable.*  So  the  defendant  may  show  matter  in  mitigation 
of  damages,^  and  may  assert  a  counterclaim.^  But  in  an  action 
against  him  for  negligence  in  the  management  of  a  cause,  an  at- 
torney cannot  be  allowed  to  show  that  he  consulted  a  distinguished 
attorney  respecting  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued,  and  the  ad- 
vice given  by  such  attorney.'''  It  is  no  defense,  in  an  action  by  a 
client  against  his  attorney  for  failing  to  report  a  judgment  lien 
on  property  on  which  the  client  placed  a  loan,  that  the  client  might 
have  compelled  the  judgment  creditor  to  resort  to  other  property 
to  satisfy  his  judginent.®     !Nor  can  an  attorney,  employed  to  ex- 

18  Hastings  v.  Halleck,  33  Cal.  203;  3  Stephens  v.  White,  2  Wash.   (Va.) 
Salisbury      r.      Gourgas,      10      Mete.      203. 

(Mass.)   442;  Benton  v.  Craig,  2  Mo.  ^Fenaille   r.   Coudert,   44   N.  J.   L. 

]98.  286. 

19  Carr  v.  Glover,  70  Mo.  App.  242.  5  See  infra,  §  338. 

20  Cornelissen  v.  Ort,  132  Mich.  294.  6  Rosebud  Min.  etc.,  Co.  v.  Hughes, 
93  X.  W.  617,  9  Detroit  Leg.  N.  604.  21  Colo.  App.  247,  121  Pac.  674. 

1  Humboldt  Bldg.  Assoc,  v.  Ducker,  7  Goodman  r.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482, 
111  Ky.  759,  64  S.  W.  67L  68  Am.  Dec.   134. 

2  Huntington    V.    Rumnill,    3    Day  8  Watson    r.    Calvert    Bldg.    Assoc. 
(Conn.)    390.  etc.,  91  Md.  25,  45  Atl.  879. 


588 


ENFOrtCEMENT  OF  LIABIEITY, 


[§  ^37 


amine  a  land  title,  set  wp  in  defense  of  an  action  for  damages  for 
his  negligence  in  overlooking  a  lien  on  snch  lands,  that  such  lien 
was  erroneous  or  of  doubtful  validity.^  An  attorney  who  under- 
takes to  conduct  a  suit  cannot  allege,  as  a  defense  to  an  action 
for  failure  to  file  the  declaration,  that  there  was  no  consideration 
for  his  engagement.^"  Xor  can  an  attorney,  sued  for  negligence 
or  want  of  skill,  set  up  in  defense  of  the  action  the  fact  that  the 
contract  between  him  and  his  client  was  champertous.^^  It  seems 
that  the  attorney  may  plead  in  bar  of  the  action,  the  fact  that  sum- 
mary jjroceedings  are  pending  against  him  in  which  the  same  ques- 
tions are  involved.''^ 

§  337.  Statute  of  Limitations.  —  Actions  against  attorneys 
for  negligence  being,  in  most  instances,  based  on  the  theory  of  a 
breach  of  contract  on  the  part  of  the  attorney,  the  statute  of  limi- 
tations, governing  the  time  within  which  such  actions  may  be 
brought,  may  be  set  np  by  the  attorney  by  way  of  defense.  Where 
the  negligence  charged  cannot  be  said  to  be  a  breach  of  contract, 
the  statute  of  limitations  applicable  to  torts  generally  would  ap- 
ply. ^^  In  the  absence  of  fraud,  the  statute  begins  to  run  from  the 
time  the  cause  of  action  accrued ;  that  is,  when  the  client  first  had 
knowledge,  or  the  means  of  knowledge,  of  the  attorney's  negligent 
act.^*     Of  course,  where  the  attorney  conceals  from  his  client  the 


9  Oilman  v.  Hovey,  26  Mo.  280. 

ic  Stcplipns  V.  White,  2  Wash. 
(Va.)    203. 

"  Goodman  r.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482, 
68  Am.  Dec.  ]34. 

12  See  infra,  §  356. 

18  United  States.— Wilcox  v.  Pluni- 
mcr,  4  Pet.  172,  7  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   821. 

Alabama. — Mardis  v.  Shackleford, 
4  Ala.  4!)3. 

California. — Hays  v.  Ewinpf,  70  Cal. 
127,  11  Pac.  602. 

Indiana. — See  Foulks  V.  Falls,  !)1 
Tnd.  315. 

Mississippi. — Cook  v.  Rives,  13 
Smcdes  &  M.  329,  53  Am.  Dec.  88. 

Xeio  York. — Peo[)le  V.  Brothcrson, 
30  Barb.  602. 


PcnnsyJrania. — Downey  r.  Garard, 
24  Pa.  St.  52. 

South  Carolina. — Thomas  r.  Ervin, 
Cheves  L.  22,  34  Am.  Dec.  586. 

Tennessee. — See  Smith  r.  Owen,  7 
Lea  53;  Bruce  v.  Baxter,  7  Lea  479; 
Hawkins  v.  Walker,  4  Yerg.  188. 

14  England. — Battley  v.  Faulkner, 
3  B.  &  Aid.  288,  5  E.  C.  L.  288;  Short 
r.  M'Carthy,  3  B.  &  Aid.  626,  5  E.  C. 
L.  403;  Granger  r.  George.  5  B.  &  C. 
149,  11  E.  C.  L.  185;  Howell  r.  Young, 
5  B.  &  C.  259,  11  E.  C.  L.  21!);  SlierifV 
r.  Bradshaw,  1  Cro.  Eliz.  53;  Siiiitli 
L\  Fox,  6  Hare  386,  12  Jur.  130. 

Pennsylvania. — Glenn  r.  Cuttle,  2 
Grant  Cas.  273;  Derrickson  r.  (^ady, 
7  Pa.   St.  27;   McDowell   f.  Potter,  8 


338] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF   LIABILITY, 


i89 


facts  which  constitute  the  cause  of  action,  the  running  of  the  stat- 
ute will  only  begin  from  the  discovery  thereof  by  the  client.^* 

§  338.  Damages.  —  The  plaintiff  must  allege  and  prove  dam- 
ages; and  unless  substantial  injury  is  proved,  the  recovery  will  be 
coniined  to  a  nominal  sum.^^  In  no  ease  can  an  attorney  be  held 
liable  for  more  than  the  actual  damage  sustained  by  his  client, 
except  in  cases  of  wilful  or  deliberate  default.^'''  Punitive  dam- 
ages may  be  recovered  where  the  wrong  charged  and  proved  against 
the  attorney  shows  malice,  or  fraud ;  or  such  gross  negligence  or 
recklessness  as  to  indicate,  on  the  part  of  the  attorney,  a  wilful  or 


Pa.  St.  189,  49  Am.  Dec.  503;  Rhincs 
V.  Evans,  66  Pa.  St.  195,  5  Am.  Rep. 
365;  Lawall  v.  Groman,  180  Pa.  St. 
532,  37  Atl.  98,  57  Am.  St.  Rep.  662. 

Rhode  Island. — Forrow  v.  Arnold, 
22  R.  I.  305,  47  Atl.  693. 

Tennessee. — Smith  v.  Owen,  7  Lea 
53. 

15  Voss  V.  Bachop,  5  Kan.  67. 

16  California. — Lane  v.  Storke,  10 
Cal.  App.  347,  101  Pac.  937;  Hinck- 
ley V.  Krug,  34  Pac.  118. 

Colorado. — Phillips  v.  Rhodes,  2 
Colo.  App.  70,  29  Pac.  1011. 

Indiana. — Nave  v.  Baird,  12  Ind. 
318. 

Michigan. — Cornelissen  v.  Ort,  132 
Mich.  294,  93  N.  W.  617,  9  Detroit 
Leg.  N.  604. 

Minnesota. — Joy  v.  Morgan,  35 
Minn.  184,  28  N.  W.  237. 

Missouri. — National  Hollow  Brake 
Beam  Co.  v.  Bakewell,  224  Mo.  203, 
123  S.  W.  561. 

New  York. — Arnold  v.  Robertson,  3 
Daly  298;  Lamprecht  r.  Bien,  125 
App.  Div.  811,  110  N.  Y.  S.  128; 
Quinn  v.  Van  Pelt,  56  N.  Y.  417. 

Ohio. — Harter  v.  Morris,  18  Ohio 
St.  492. 

Rhode  Island. — Forrow  v.  Arnold, 
22  R.  I.  305,  47  Atl.  693. 


Tennessee. — Collier  v.  PuUiam,  13 
Lea  114. 

17  United  States.  —  Suydam  v. 
Vance,  2  McLean  99,  23  Fed.  Cas.  No. 
13,657. 

Arkansas. — Pennington  r.  Yell,  11 
Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Connecticut. — Huntington  v.  Rum- 
nill.  3  Day  390. 

Georgia. — Cox  v.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
144,  50  Am.  Dec.  386;  Lilly  r.  Boyd, 
72  Ga.  83. 

Illinois. — Goldzier  v.  Poole,  82  HI. 
App.  469. 

Massachusetts. — Whitney  r.  Ab- 
bott, 191  Mass.  59,  77  N.  E.  524. 

Michigan. — Dean  r.  Radford,  141 
Mich.  36,  104  N.  W.  329. 

Mississippi. — Grayson  v.  Wilkin- 
son, 5  Smedes  &  M.  268. 

Xew  York. — Quinn  t;.  Van  Pelt,  56 
N.  Y.  417;  Vooth  v.  McEachen,  181 
N.  Y.  28,  2  Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  N.  E. 
488,  reversing  91  App.  Div.  30,  86  N. 
Y.  S.  431;  Fay  ?;.  McGuire,  20  App. 
Div.  569,  47  N.  Y.  S.  286,  affirmed 
without  opinion  162  N.  Y.  644,  57  N. 
E.  1109;  Childs  f.  Comstock,  69  App. 
Div.  160,  74  N.  Y.  S.  643;  Lam- 
precht V.  Bien,  125  App.  Div.  811,  110 
N.  Y.  S.  128;  Flynn  r.  Judge,  149 
App.  Div.  278,  133  N.  Y.  S.  794. 


»90 


EXFOECF.MKXT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  3:38 


wanton  disregard  of  his  client's  rights.'^^  Tims  it  has  heen  held 
that  punitive  damages  may  be  recovered  where  an  attorney  falsely 
gives  his  client  information  that  leads  her  to  a  second,  marriage 
which  renders  her  liable  to  indictment  and  prosecution  for  big- 
amy. ^^  So,  an  attorney  may  become  liable  for  punitive  damages 
which  his  client  has  been  obliged  to  pay,  or  which  he  has  failed 
to  recover  from  another,  because  of  his  attorney's  negligence.^'* 
The  attorney  may,  of  course,  show  an}'  facts  which  have  a  tendency 
to  mitigate  the  damages;^  as,  for  instance,  a  settlement  by  the 
client  of  the  action  in  connection  with  which  the  negligence  is 
charged;  ^  or  that  the  client  continued  to  employ  the  attorney  after 
he  had  knowledge  of  the  alleged  negligence.^  But  in  a  suit  against 
an  attorney  for  negligence  in  not  moving  for  a  return  of  property 


Pennsylrania. — McDaniels  v.  Cut- 
k^r,  3  Biewst.  57 ;  Derrickson  v.  Cady, 
7   Pa.  St.  27. 

Rhode  Island. — Forrow  v.  Arnold, 
22  R.  I.  305,  47  Atl.  693. 

South  Carolina. — Johnson  V.  Mon- 
ro, 3  Hill  L.  8. 

Vermont. — Crooker  v.  Hutchinson, 
2  D.  Chip.  117. 

18  Hill  V.  Montgomery,  84  111.  App. 
300,  affirmed  184  111.  220,  56  N.  E. 
320. 

19  Hill  V.  Montgomery,  84  111.  App. 
300,  affirmed  184  111.  220,  56  N.  E. 
320. 

20 Patterson  v.  Frazer,  (Tex.)  79 
S.  W.  1077. 

But  see  Forrow  v.  Arnold,  22  R.  I. 
305,  47  Atl.  693,  wherein  it  appears 
tliat  "A.,  an  attorney,  issued  for  B., 
iiis  client,  a  void  writ  upon  wliich  C. 
was  arrested.  After  jndgmont  in 
favor  of  C,  an  action  of  malicious 
prosecution  was  commenced  against 
B.  by  C,  in  which  he  recovered  the 
Bum  of  $400  as  damages.  This  amount, 
which  was  largely  punitive,  was 
based  upon  one  or  more  allegations  of 
the  gravamen,  vi/. :    (1)    that  the  of- 


ficer (through  ignorance  and  without 
instructions  from  A.)  took  C.  to  the 
county  seat  after  bail  had  been  pro- 
cured; (2)  that  tlie  affidavit  was 
false  in  stating  tliat  B.  had  a  just 
claim  against  C;  and  (3)  that  it  was 
false  in  stating  that  C.  was  about  to 
leave  the  state.  After  satisfaction 
of  the  judgment,  B.  brought  an  action 
against  A.  for  negligence  and  recov- 
ered the  amount  of  said  judgment  as 
damages."  And  it  was  held  "that 
none  of  the  things  alleged  as  grava- 
men against  B.  upon  which  punitive 
damages  were  recovered  could  be 
charged  upon  A.  as  the  proximate  re- 
sult of  his  neglect;"  and  also  "that  A. 
was  liable  for  issuing  the  void  writ, 
for  the  cost  of  prosecuting  the  origi- 
nal suit;  the  judgment  against  B.  in 
tluit  suit;  and,  if  C.  should  sue  for 
an  illegal  arrest,  tlie  judgment 
against  B.  on  tliat  account." 

1  Moorman   r.   Wood,    117    Ind.    144, 
19  N.  E.  739. 

2  Drury   t\    Butler,    171    Mass.    171, 
50  N.  E.  527. 

8  Derrickson  v.  Cady,  7  Pa.  St.  27. 


§§    u39,  340]  ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY.  591 

in  a  replevin  suit,  on  nonsuit,  it  is  not  competent  for  him  to  show, 
in  i-ednction  of  damages,  that  the  plaintiff  in  replevin  was  the  real 
owner  of  the  property,  as  that  would  amount  to  a  retrial  of  the 
replevin  suit.* 

§  339.  Survival  of  Action.  —  Actions  against  attorneys  for 
negligence  survive  the  death  of  either  party.*  Such  survival  is 
now  quite  generally  provided  for  by  statute;  but  even  in  the  ab- 
sence of  statute,  cases  of  this  character  were  held  to  form  an  ex- 
ception to  the  general  rule  that  actions  for  the  redress  of  personal 
injuries  only  do  not  survive.  This  exception  proceeds  on  the 
theory  that,  in  those  cases,  the  injury  to  the  person  is  merely  inci- 
dental, while  the  injury  to  property  and  property  rights  is  sub- 
stantial.^ It  has  been  stated,  however,  that  these  actions  did  not 
survive  at  common  law,'  excepting,  possibly,  where  special  damage 
was  alleged.* 

Actions  for  Negligence  in  Collection^  of  Claims. 

§  340.  Pleading  and  Proof.  —  As  stated  above  with  reference 
to  actions  for  negligence  generally,^  so,  where  the  negligence 
charged  is  in  connection  with  the  failure  of  the  attorney  to  col- 
lect his  client's  claims,  it  is  equally  essential  that  every  element 
of  such  a  cause  should  be  alleged  and  proved  by  the  client.^"    Thus, 

4Smallwood  v.  Norton,  20  Me.  83,  8  Henshaw  v.  Miller,   17  How.  212, 

37  Am.  Dec.   39.  15  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  222;  Lee  v.  Hill,  87 

5  J/ame.— Stimpson    v.    Sprague,    6  Va.   497,   12   S.   E.   1052,   24  Am.   St. 
Greenl.  470.  Rep.     666.       See     also     Knights     v. 

New       Hampshire.  —  Jenkins        v.      Quarles,  2  Brod.  &  B.  102,  6  E.  C.  L. 
French,  58  N.  H.  532.  gg^  4  ^joo   C   p]    532.  Chamberlain  v. 

New    Jersey.— Tichenor    v.    Hayes,       Williamson,  2  M.  &  S.   (Eng.)   408. 
41  N.  J.  L.  193,  32  Am.  Rep.  186.  ,  g^^  ^^^^.^    ^^  334^  335 

Neic     York. — Elder     v.     Bogardus, 
Hill  &  D.  Supp.  116. 

Pennsylvania. — Miller     v.     Wilson, 

24  Pa.  St.  114.  .  ,   , 

„„,  „     ,  ^1  ,     .0   ^T        Ark.  512;  Peay  v.  Rmgo,  22  Ark.  68. 

6  Warner  Bank  v.  Clement,   08   N.  '         .'  &  ' 

TT    goo  California. — Cox  v.  Delmas,  99  Cal. 

7  Elder  v.  Bogardus,  Hill  &  D.  Supp.       ^04,  33  Pac.  836. 

(X.    Y.)    116.        See    Chamberlain    v.  Illinois.— Singer   v.    Steele,    24    111. 

Williamson,  2  "SI.  &  S.    (Eng.)   408.  App.  58. 


io  Alabama. — Paulding    v.    Lee,    20 
Ala.  753. 

Arkansas. — Sevier    v.    Hollidav,    2 


592 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§    340 


it  must  be  alleged  and  proved  that  the  claim  was  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  attorney  for  collection/^  that  such  claim  was  a  sub- 
sisting debt/^  that  it  was  collectable/^  that  it  was  the  attorney's 
duty  to  collect  it/*  that  there  was  a  failure  to  collect/*  and  that 
this  failure  was  due  to  the  attorney's  negligence. ^^  There  is  no 
presumption  of  negligence  in  this  class  of  cases  any  more  than 
there  is  in  the  other. ^'     The  general  rules  of  evidence  prevail.^* 


Kentucky. — McArtluir  v.  Baker,  7 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  440. 

Mississippi. — See  Ransom  r.  Coth- 
ran,  6  Smedes  &  M.  167. 

Tennessee. — Bruce  i'.  Baxter,  7  Lea 
477. 

11  Priest  i:  Dodsworth,  235  IlL  613, 
14  Ann.  Cas.  340,  8.5  X.  E.  940; 
Vooth  V.  McEachen,  181  N.  Y.  28,  2 
Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  N.  E.  488,  reversing 
91  App.  Div.  30,  86  N.  Y.  S.  431. 

^^  Arkansas. — Sevier  v.  Holliday,  2 
Ark.  512;  Pennington  v.  Yell,  11  Ark. 
212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Illinois. — Goldzier  v.  Poole,  82  111. 
App.  469. 

Kentucky. — Baker  v.  ilcArtlmr,  5 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  185. 

Louisiana. — Spiller  r.  Davidson,  4 
La.  Ann.  171. 

Tennessee. — Collier  v.  PuUiam,  13 
Lea  114. 

13  Hoover  v.  Shackleford,  23  Miss. 
520;  Collier  r.  PuUiam,  13  Lea 
(Tenn.)  118;  Staples  v.  Staples,  85 
Va.  76,  84,  7  S.  E.  199. 

li  England.— In  re  Chitty,  2  Dowl. 
421. 

United  States. — Robertson  v.  Chap- 
man, 152  U.  S.  673,  14  S.  Ct.  741,  38 
V.  S.   (L.  ed.)   592. 

Louisiana. — Hughes  v.  Boyce,  2  La. 
Ann.  803. 

Maine. — Odiin  r.  Stetson,  17  Me. 
244,  ;j.)  Am.  Drc.  248;  Small  wood  r. 
Norton,  20  .Mc  83,  37  .\mi.  D.'c.  3!». 


Mississippi. — Grayson  v.  Wilkin- 
son. 5  Smedes  &  M.  268. 

yew  York. — In  re  Dakin,  4  Hill  42. 

Texas. — Morgan  t'.  Giddings,  1  S. 
W.   369. 

15  Palmer  v.  Ashley,  3  Ark.  75 ; 
Rougher  v.  Seobey,  23  Ind.  583;  Spil- 
ler r.  Davidson,  4  La.  Ann.  171. 

^^  Alabama. — Jackson  v.  Clopton, 
66  Ala.  29. 

Arkayisas. — Palmer  V.  Ashley,  3 
Ark.  75. 

Georgia. — Nisbet  V.  Lawson,  1  Ga. 
275. 

Illinois. — Priest  v.  Dodsworth,  235 
111.  613,  14  Ann.  Cas.  340,  85  N.  E. 
940;  Goldzier  v.  Poole,  82  111.  App. 
469. 

Indiana. — Nickless  V.  Pearson,  81 
Ind.  429.  See  also  Hillegass  v.  Bend- 
er, 78  Ind.  227. 

Louisiana. — Spiller  v.  Davidson,  4 
La.   Ann.   171. 

Mississippi. — Ransom  v.  Cothran,  6 
Smedes  &  M.  167. 

New  York. — Vooth  v.  McEachen, 
181  N.  Y.  28,  2  Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  N. 
E.  488,  reversing  91  App.  Div.  30,  86 
N.  Y.  S.  431. 

Tennessee. — Read  v.  Patterson,  11 
Lea  431. 

Virginia. — Staples  v.  Stai)les,  85 
Va.  76,  7  S.  E.  199. 

17-I('nkins  v.  Stepliens.  60  ({a.  210. 
And  sec  supra,  §  335. 

18  Goodman  r.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482, 
68  Am.   Dec.    134. 


§  o-ilj  enfokck;^u-:nt  of  liabii-ity.  59o 

The  proof  must  conform  to  the  plea>lings.^^  The  attorney's  re- 
ceipt for  the  claim  is  sufficient  evidence  not  only  of  that  fact,^" 
I'ut  also  of  the  fact  that  the  relation  of  attorney  and  clifut  ex- 
isted between  the  parties.^  Such  receipt  also  raises  a  presumption 
that  the  claim  was  received  for  the  purpose  of  collection,^  and  im- 
plies an  agreement  on  the  j^art  of  the  attorney  to  use  due  dili- 
gence for  that  purpose.^  But  it  is  not  evidence  of  negligence  in 
failing  to  make  the  collection.^  Whether  attorneys  employed  to 
collect  a  note  were  negligent  in  surrendering  it,  and  accepting  in 
good  faith  in  its  place  a  new  note  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did 
not  bind  the  indorsers  because  of  a  material  alteration  made  after 
they  had  signed  it,  is  a  question  of  fact,  and  not  of  law.^ 

§  341.  Defenses  Generally.  —  The  attorney  may  set:  up  and 
prove  any  defense  which  he  may  have  to  the  action.  What  will 
be  available  or  effective  for  this  purpose,  however,  must  depend 
on  the  facts  of  the  particular  case.  The  burden  of  proving  his 
defense  rests,  of  course,  upon  the  attorney.®  Thus  the  attorney 
may  prove,  in  his  defense,  that  the  claim  which  he  was  employed 
to  collect  was  not  owing  to  his  client,'  or  that  it  was  not  collectable,' 
or  that  the  failure  to  collect  was  due  to  the  act  of  the  client,^  or 
that  the  owner  of  the  claim  has  still  a  valid  and  subsisting  remedy 
by  which  it  may  be  collected.^"  While  there  are  some  decisions 
that  hold  that  the  champerty  cuts  both  wa3's,  and  that  the  client, 
being  party  to  the  unlawful  agreement,  is  without  legal  remedy  for 

19  Crothers  v.  Lee,  29  Ala.  .337 ;   C.  5  Weyerhauser    r.    Dun,    1 00    X.   Y. 

Aultman  &  Co.  r.  Goldsmith,  84  Iowa  150.  2  N.  E.  274. 

547,  51  X.  W.  43.  6  Moorman   v.   Wood,   117   Ind.  144, 

ZOMardis     c.    Shackleford,     4     Ala.  19  X.  E.  739;   Stanton  v.  Clinton.  52 

493;    Hair    r.    Glover,    14    Ala.    500:  Iowa  109,  2  N.  W.  1027. 

Goodman   v.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482,   68  7  Jackson     v.     Tilghman,     1     Miles 

Am.   Dec.   134.  (Pa.)    31. 

1  Goodman  r.  Walker,  30  Ala.  482,  8  Marsh  v.  Wliitmore,  21  Wall.  178, 
68  Am.  Dec.  134.  22  U.  S.    (L.  ed.)    482. 

2  Smedes  v.  Elmendorf,  3  Johns.  9  Ransom  v.  Cothran.  6  Smedes  & 
(N.  Y.)   185.  M.   (Miss.)    167. 

3  Mardis  t'.  Shackleford,  4  Ala.  493.  10  Huntington  v.  Rumnill,  3  Day 
See  also  supra,  §§  326-330.  (Conn.)    390. 

4Mardis  v.  Shackleford,  4  Ala.  493. 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 38. 


594 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§§   342,343 


anything  connected  with  it,  the  better  doctrine  is,  that  the  attorney 
having  received  money,  the  client  is  entitled  to  it;  the  agreement 
is  his  defense,  and  if  the  agreement  is  unlawful,  the  defense  fails.^^ 

§  342.  Statute  of  Limitations.  —  In  actions  charging  an  at- 
torney with  negligence  in  failing  to  collect  his  client's  claims,  the 
statute  of  limitations  begins  to  run  after  the  lapse  of  a  reasonable 
time  in  which  the  claim  might  either  have  been  collected,  or  pro- 
ceedings to  enforce  such  collection  might  have  been  instituted ;  ^^ 
what  amounts  to  a  reasonable  time  in  such  cases  must  be  deter- 
mined from  the  facts."  Where  a  claim  is  lost  through  the  mis- 
conduct or  fraud  of  an  attorney  with  whom  a  collection  agency  has 
intrusted  it  for  collection,  and  the  replies  of  the  agency  to  in- 
quiries made  were  calculated  to  throw  the  claimants  off  their 
guard,  the  statute  of  limitations  only  begins  to  run  against  the 
claimants  from  the  time  of  their  discovery  of  the  fraud. ^* 

§  343.  Damages.  —  If  a  party  sustains  loss  beciuise  of  the 
negligence  of  his  attorney  in  the  collection  of  a  debt,  the  m<i.4sure 
of  damat^es  is  the  amount  of  the  loss  actually  sustained, ^^  and  not 


11  Dunne  v.  Herrick,  37  111.  App. 
]80. 

12  United  States. — \Yilcox  v.  Plum- 
mer,  4  Pet.  172,  7  U.  S.   (L.  ed.)   821. 

Alabama. — ]\Iardis    r.    Shackleford, 

4  Ala.  493. 

Kentucky. — McArthur  v.  Baker,  7 
Ky.  L.  Rep.  441. 

Pennsylvania. — Downey  ;;.  Garard, 
24  Pa.  St.  52;  :SIorri8on  r.  :Mullin,  34 
Pa.  St.  17;  Barton  v.  Dickens,  48  Pa. 
St.  518;  Campbell  r.  Boggs,  48  Pa.  St. 
524;   Rliines  v.  Evans,  (30  Pa.  St.  194, 

5  Am.  Rep.  365. 

i3RI,ines  V.  Evans,  (J()  Pa.  St.  194, 
5  .Am.  Rep.  365.  See  also  McDowell 
V.  Potter,  8  Pa.  St.  189,  49  Am.  Doc. 
503:  Downey  v.  (larard,  24  Pa.  St. 
52. 

14  .Mui-'an  r.  Tcner,  83  Pa.  St.  305. 
And  sec  infra,  %  351. 


15  Arkansas. — Pennington  f .  Yell, 
11  Ark.  212,  52  Am.  Dec.  262. 

Georgia. — Cox  r.  Sullivan,  7  Ga. 
144,  50  Am.  Dec.  386. 

Kentucky. — Eccles  v.  Stephenson,  3 
Bibb  517. 

Massachusetts. — Dearborn  v.  Dear- 
born, 15  Mass.  316. 

Neio  York. — Vooth  t'.  McKachen, 
181  N.  Y.  28,  2  Ann.  Cas.  601,  73  N. 
E.  488. 

Vermont. — Crooker  v.  Hutchinson, 
2  D.  Chip.  117. 

Where  an  attorney  negligently 
fails,  in  violation  of  express  instruc- 
tions from  his  client,  to  issue  execu- 
tion upon  a  judgment,  he  is  liable  in 
any  event  for  nominal  damages,  and 
if  the  judgment  could  have  been  col- 
lected by  execution,  and  is  after- 
wards lost  til  rough  the   insolvency  of 


§   ^44] 


EXFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


595 


the  nominal  amount  of  the  demand.^^  Thns  it  has  been  held  that 
if  an  attorney  neglects  to  bring  suit  on  a  note  placed  in  his  hands 
for  collection,  contrary  to  the  directions  of  his  client,  and  the  debt 
is  thereby  lost,  the  attorney  is  liable  in  damages  for  whatever 
amount  might  have  been  recovered  had  he  brought  suit  at  the  time 
he  was  instructed  so  to  do.^'  Any  fact  which  Avill  tend  to  reduce 
the  valne  of  the  debt  below  the  amount  of  the  claim  is  proper  to 
be  considered  by  the  jury." 

Actions  for  Money  Collected. 

§  344.  Right  to  an  Accounting.  —  An  attorney  is  bound  to 
render  an  account  as  to  moneys  collected  by  him  for  his  client; 
and  should  he  refuse  to  do  so,  an  action  to  compel  such  accounting 
will  lie.^^    iS^or  will  the  attorney  be  relieved  from  this  duty  merely 


the  debtor,  he  is  liable  for  tlie  full 
amount  of  the  judgment;  but  if  the 
client  discharges  the  negligent  at- 
torney, and  the  judgment  could  then 
have  been  collected  by  execution, 
which  the  client  negligently  fails  to 
have  issued,  and  tlie  debtors  after- 
ward become  insolvent,  the  attorney 
is  liable  only  for  nominal  damages, 
the  negligence  of  the  client  being  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  loss.  Read  r. 
Patterson,  11   Lea    (Tenn.)    431. 

16  Cox  V.  Sullivan,  7  Ga.  144,  50 
Am.  Dec.  386;  Crooker  r.  Hutchinson, 
2  D.  Chip.  (Vt.)  117. 

"Gilbert  r.  Williams,  8  Mass.  51, 

5  Am.  Dec.  77;  Fitch  v.  Scott,  3  How. 
(Miss.)  314,  34  Am.  Dec.  86;  Cox  v. 
Livingston,  2  Watts  &  S.  (Pa.)  103, 
37  Am.  Dec.  480. 

18  Crooker  v.  Hutchinson,  2  D. 
Chip.   (Vt.)    117. 

19  United  Stales. — Stanwood  r.  Wis- 
hard,   128  Fed.  499. 

Alabama. — Mardis    r.    Sliackleford, 

6  Ala.  433;  Kirkman  v.  Vanlier,  7 
Ala.  224. 


Indiana. — J3ougher  v.  Scobey,  IG 
Ind.  151  ;  Bougher  v.  Scobey,  23  Ind. 
583. 

Kentucky. — Scott  v.  Wickliffe,  1  B. 
Mon.  353. 

New  Jersey. — Kelley  v.  Repetto,  62 
N.  J.  Eq.  246,  49  Atl.  429. 

New  York. — Matter  of  Raby,  29 
App.  Div.  225,  51  N.  Y.  S.  552 ;  Jack- 
son r.  Moore,  72  App.  Div.  217,  76  N. 
Y.  S.  164;  Pallace  r.  Niagara,  etc.. 
Power  Co.,  131  App.  Div.  453,  115  N. 
Y.  S.  340;  Secor  v.  Tradesmen's  Xat. 
Bank,  148  App.  Div.  141,  133  X.  Y.  S. 
197;  In  re  Keen,  39  Misc.  374,  79  X. 
Y.  S.  857;  Tiffany  r.  Hess,  67  Misc. 
258,  122  X.  Y.  S.  482,  affirmed  140 
App.  Div.  933,  125  X.  Y.  S.  1147. 

Pennsylvania. — ^IcDaniels  v.  Cut- 
ler, 3  Brews.  57. 

Accounting  by  Partnership.  — 
Though  in  an  action  at  law  the  repre- 
sentatives of  deceased  partners  can- 
not be  joined  as  defendants  with  the 
surviving  partner  in  an  action  upon 
a  partnership  obligation  unless  the 
inability  to  secure  a  satisfaction  from 
the  surviving  partner  is  shown,  yet, 


596 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  345 


because  he  has  a  lien  on  the  fimd,^"  or  because  the  fund  is,  under 
the  client's  instructions,  to  be  paid  to  third  persons.^  Where  an 
attorney  is  shown  to  be  in  possession  of  his  client's  money,  and  is 
called  upon  to  account,  he  is  bound  to  show  in  detail  what  he  has 
done  with  it,  and  to  justify  its  retention  or  expenditure;  and  it 
is  not  enough  for  him  merely  to  state  in  general  terms  that  he  has 
retained  it  for  counsel  fees,  and  for  moneys  which  he  has  paid 
out  on  account  of  the  petitioner.^  Where  counsel  was  supplied 
with  money  to  purchase  rights  of  way,  and  for  expenses  incurred 
in  securing  franchises,  and  he  paid  over  part  thereof  to  an  assist- 
ant, to  be  used  for  the  purposes  aforesaid,  the  fact  that  the  latter 
verbally  accounted  to  the  general  counsel  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  him  will  not  excuse  him  from  accounting  in  detail  to  the  com- 
pany, as  a  condition  precedent  to  recovering  for  his  services.^  But 
where  an  attorney  has  rendered  an  account  of  all  moneys  or  other 
property  coming  into  his  hands,  he  has  fuliilled  his  entire  duty  in 
this  respect,  and  is  not  liable  in  a  subsequent  action  for  a  further 
accounting.*  A  bill  for  an  accounting  will  be  dismissed  on  de- 
murrer unless  it  discloses  an  equitable  cause  of  action.^ 

§  345.   Right  to  Sue.  —  One  for  whom  an  attorney  has  col- 
lected monev  may  sue  him  for  its  recovery.^     Suits  of  this  char- 


where  redress  is  sought  in  equity  for 
breach  of  trust  by  a  deceased  member 
of  a  law  firm,  all  persons  affected  may 
be  made  parties,  and  hence  the  sur- 
viving partners  and  the  executrices  of 
deceased  partners  in  the  firm  may  be 
joined  as  defendants.  Tiffany  r. 
Hess,  67  Misc.  2.58.  122  N.  Y.  S.  482, 
affirmed  140  App.  Div.  933,  125  N.  Y. 
S.  1147. 

Effect  of  Failure  to  Account.  — 
Tliat  an  attorney  failed  to  comply 
with  an  order  of  court  requiring  him 
to  account  to  his  client,  does  not 
warrant  the  court  in  treating  such 
failure  as  a  confession  of  the  plain- 
tiff's demand,  and  entering  a  judg- 
ment against  liim  for  such  an  amoujit. 
in   the   face    of   a   gcniTiil   (h'liial    and 


counterclaim.     Everett    r.    Jones,    32 
Utah  480,  91  Pac.  360. 

20McCracken  v.  Harned,  59  N.  J. 
Eq.  190,  44  Atl.  959. 

1  Mardis  v.  Shackleford,  6  Ala.  433. 

2  In  re  Raby,  29  App.  Div.  225,  51 
X.  Y.   S.   552. 

3  Pallace  r.  Niagara,  etc..  Power 
Co.,  131  App.  Div.  453,  115  N.  Y.  S. 
340. 

4  Hernandez  r.  Dart.  109  La.  880, 
33  So.  905. 

5  Powers  V.  Cray,  7  C.a.  206;  Ferree 
r.  United  Storage  Co.,  2':>7  Pa.  St.  41, 
75  Atl.  838,  wherein  it  also  appears 
that  the  relation  of  attorney  and 
client  did   not  exist. 

s  Alalinnia. — Mardis  v.  Shackleford, 
6   Ala.  433. 


§    o45]  ENFOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY.  597 

acter  aro,  of  course,  usually  l)r()Ui>lit  by  the  client,  but  they  may 
be  uuiiutaiued  by  any  person  entitled  to  the  fund.'  It  is  imma- 
terial that  the  attorney  claims  a  lien  upon  the  fund,'  or  that  he 
had  no  authority  to  collect  it,^  or  that  there  is  a  dispute  as  to  the 
amount  of  his  fees.^°  Where  an  attorney  at  law,  at  a  sale  in  ])ar- 
tition  proceedings  in  which  he  represented  a  defendant  having  a 
fractional  interest  in  the  premises,  purchased  the  property  in  his 
own  name,  and  as  part  payment  gave  to  the  sheriff  his  receipt  for 
his  client's  interest  in  the  proceeds,  it  was  held,  that  although  the 
sheriff  did  not  actually  receive  and  pay  back  to  the  attorney  his 
client's  share  of  the  money,  yet  the  legal  effect  was  the  same,  and 
the  attorney  might  be  sued  by  the  client  for  money  received  for 
his  use.^^  So,  where  an  attorney  gave  his  client  a  memorandum 
stating  that  a  judgment  had  been  settled  b^^  drafts  which  he  would 
account  for,  it  will  be  presumed  that  he  converted  the  drafts  into 
money,  and  he  will  be  liable  to  an  action  for  the  amount  thereof. ^^ 
But  where  an  attorney  collects  money  belonging  jointly  to  several 
persons,  one  of  them  may  not  sue  alone  for  the  recovery  of  his 
share  until  the  amount  thereof  has  been  determined ;  ^^  and  where 
the  professional  relation  involves  a  series  of  acts  and  duties,  the 
attorney  may  not  be  sued  with  respect  thereto  until  the  relation 

Arkansas. — Burke    v.    Stillwell,    23  Tennessee. — Smith   r.  Owen,   7   Lea 

Ark.  294;   Maloney  v.  Terry,  70  Ark.  .53. 

189,  66  S.  W.  919,  72  S.  W.  570.  7  Mardis  v.  Shackleford,  6  Ala.  433. 

Indiana. — Bougher     V.     Scobey,    16  And  see  supra,  §  299. 

Ind.  151.  8  Wliinery   v.  Brown,   36   Ind.   App. 

Kentuckij.—Ema  v.  Henry,  5  J.  J.  276,  75  N.  E.  605. 

Marsh.  247.  9  McFarland  r.  Crary,   8  Cow.    (N. 

Maine. — Newcastle     v.     Bellard,     3  Y.)     253;     Smith     v.    Owen,     7    Lea 

Greenl.  369.  (Tenn.)    53. 

Michigan. — Robinson   v.  HaAves,   56  id  Robinson  v.  Hawes,  56  Mich.  ]3.5„ 

Mich.  135,  22  N.  W.  222.  22  X.  W.  222;  Szok  v.  Crown,  33  Pa. 

New  York. — Beardsley  r.  Root,   11  Super.  Ct.  612. 

Johns.  465,  6  Am.  Dec.  386;   Reed  v.  n  Sullivan    v.    Grace,    5    Mo.    App. 

Hayward,  82  App.  Div.  416.  81  N.  Y.  594. 

S.  608.  12  Burke   v.   Stillwell,    23  Ark.   204. 

Pennsi/lvania. — Szok    v.   Crown,    33  13  Jackson   r.   Moore,   72  App.   Div. 

Pa.  Super.  Ct.  612;   Coleman  V.  Tim,  217,  76  N.  Y.  S.  164. 
18  N.  Y.  C.  240. 

South    Dakota. — Jones    v.    Winsor, 
22  S.  D.  480,  118  N.  W.  716. 


598 


EXFORCEMEIS'T  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§    346 


has  been  dissolved.^*  So,  where  an  administrator  paid  over  the 
bahmce  in  his  hands  to  the  attorney  for  the  distributees,  with  di- 
rections to  hold  it  in  trust  for  them,  but  not  to  pay  it  to  them  un- 
til they  executed  releases,  they  cannot  maintain  a  proceeding  to 
require  the  attorney  to  pay  over  their  respective  shares  without 
first  tendering  the  required  releases,  in  compliance  with  the  con- 
dition precedent  so  imposed/*  The  liability  of  an  attorney  for 
failure  to  pay  over  money  collected  for  his  client,^^  or  held  by 
him  for  other  persons,^'  has  been  considered  heretofore. 

§  346.  Necessity  of  Making  Demand  Prior  to  Bringing 
Suit.  —  While  it  is  undoubtedly  the  duty  of  an  attorney  to  no- 
tify and  pay  over  to  his  client  such  moneys  as  he  may  have  col- 
lected,^* the  general  rule  is  that  a  suit  cannot  be  maintained  for 
the  recovery  thereof  until  payment  has  been  demanded  by  the 
client,  unless  such  demand  has  been  waived  by  the  attorney.^^ 
But  a  prior  demand  for  payment  is  not  essential  where  the  attor- 
ney neglects  to  notify  his  client  of  the  collection  of  the  money 


14  Glenn  r.  Cuttle,  2  Grant  Gas. 
(Pa.)    273. 

15  In  re  8niyley,  64  Hun  G39  mem., 
in   X.   Y.  S.  2GG. 

16  See   supra,   §   328. 

17  See  supra,   §  299. 

18  See  supra,  §  328. 

19  United  States. — Sneed  v.  Hanly, 
Hempst.  659,  22  Fed.  Gas.  No.  13,- 
136. 

Alabama. — Mardis  r.  Schaeklcford, 
4   Ala.   493. 

Arkansas. — Cummins  r.  McLain,  2 
Ark.  402:  Palmer  r.  Ashley,  3  Ark. 
75;  Denton  r.  Embury,  10  Ark.  228; 
Jett  r.  Hempstead,  25   Ark.  462. 

Indiana.- — Black  r.  Herscli.  18  Ind. 
342,  81  Am.  Dec  362:  Pierso  v. 
'Hiornton.  ^4  Ind.  235;  Kyser  v. 
Weils,  60  Iiiii.  261;  Glaypool  r.  Gisli, 
108  Ind.  424,  9  X.  E.  382;  Wlunery 
r.  Rrown,  36  Ind.  App.  276,  75  N. 
E.  605.  See  also  Bougher  v.  Scobcy, 
23  Ind.  583. 


Kansas. — Voss  v.  Bacliop,  5  Kan. 
59. 

KentucJ:}/. — Roberts  v.  Armstrong, 
1  Bush  263,  89  Am.  Dec.  624;  Cord 
V.  Taylor,   5  Ky.  L.  Rep.  852. 

Missoxiri. — Beardslee  V.  Boyd,  37 
Mo.  180. 

New  York.- — Satterlee  v.  Frazer,  4 
Sandf.  141  ;  People  r.  Brotherson.  36 
Barb.  662 ;  Taylor  r.  Bates,  5  Cow. 
376:  Ex  p.  Ferguson,  6  Cow.  596; 
McFarland  r.  Grary,  8  Cow.  253; 
Rathbun  V.  Ingals,  7  Wend.  320; 
Banner  r.  D'Auby,  34  Misc.  525,  69 
N.  Y.  S.  891. 

Pennsylvania. — Glenn  r.  Guttle,  2 
Grant  Cas.  273. 

South  Carolina. — Madden  r.  Watts, 
59  S.  C.  81,  37  S.  E.  209. 

A  demand  on  one  of  several  part- 
ners is  equivalent  to  a  demand  on 
all.  McFarland  V.  Crary,  8  Cow,  (N, 
Y.)   253. 


§  o47] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


599 


within  a  reasonable  tirne,^"  or  where  he  denies  the  right  of  his 
client  to  the  fund/  or  sets  up  a  claim  thereto  exceeding  the  amount 
collected,'^  or  converts  the  fund  to  his  own  use,'  or  where  he  agreed 
to  pay  it  over  when  collected  and  failed  to  do  so,*  or  where  his  col- 
lection of  the  fund  was  unauthorized,*  or  where  the  fund  was  col- 
lected under  a  contract  which  was  void  as  against  public  policy.* 
In  some  jurisdictions  no  preliminary  demand  is  necessary,'  the 
commencement  of  the  action  being  deemed  a  sufficient  demand  in 
itself.^  Nor  is  a  demand  necessary  for  the  recovery  of  choses  in 
action  held  by  an  attorney  as  trustee  for  his  client.^ 

§  347.  Form  of  Action.  —  The  duty  of  an  attorney  to  pay 
over  money  collected  by  him  for  his  client  rests  in  contract,^"  and 
is  usually  enforced  by  the  common-law  action  of  assumpsit,  or  its 
equivalent  under  modern  forms  of  pleading.^^  Thus  the  action 
may  be  brought  for  money  had  and  received,^^  or  account  ren- 
dered.^'   But,  excepting  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  an  account- 


so  Denton  r.  Embury.  10  Ark.  228: 
Jett  V.  Hempstead,  25  Ark.  4G2; 
Chapman  v.  Burt,  77  III.  337;  Glenn 
V.  Cuttle,  2   Grant  Cas.    (Pa.)    273. 

1  Burrows  v.  McCalley,  17  Wash. 
269,   49  Pac.   508. 

2Walradt  v.  Maynard,  3  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  584;  Rathbun  r.  Ingals,  7  Wend. 
(N.  Y.)  320;  Krause  v.  Dorrance,  10 
Pa.   St.  462,  51   Am.  Dec.  496. 

3  Chapman   v.   Burt,   77   111.   337. 

Contra  Kyser  v.  Wells,  60  Ind. 
261. 

4Mardis  v.  Shackleford,  4  Ala.  493. 

5  Mowery  v.  Webb,  6  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
360. 

6  Jordan  v.  Westerman,  62  Mich. 
170,  28  N.  W.  826,  4  Am.  St.  Rep. 
836. 

7  Shepherd  v.  Crawford,  71  Ga. 
458;  Coffin  r.  Coffin,  7  Me.  298,  over- 
ruling Staples  V.  Staples,  4  Me.  532. 

SHollenbeck  v.  Stanberry,  38  la. 
325. 


9Metz  r.  Abney,  64  S.  C.  254,  42 
S.    E.    103. 

10  Jackson  r.  Moore,  72  App.  Div. 
217,  76  N.  Y.  S.  164. 

"Ellis  r.  Henry,  5  J.  J.  Marsh, 
(Ky.)  247;  Sackett  r.  Breen,  50  Hun 
602,  3  N.  Y.  S.  473;  Campbell  v. 
Boggs,  12  Wright  (Pa.)  524;  Al- 
bright r.  Mercer,  14  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
63;  Palmer  v.  Thomson,  4  Riclu  L. 
(S.   C.)    607. 

12  Cameron  r.  Clarke,  11  Ala.  259; 
Houx   V.  Russell,   10  Mo.  246. 

13  Bredin  ?'.  Kingland,  4  Watts 
(Pa.)  420.  But  see  Albright  r.  Mer- 
cer, 14  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  63.  And  see 
supra,    §    344. 

Book  Account. — Money  collected  by 
an  attorney  upon  demands  left  with 
him  for  collection  cannot  ordinarily 
be  recovered  from  him  by  the  creditor 
in  book  account.  But,  if  the  parties 
agree  that  the  money  so  received  may 
be  charged  upon  book,  the  objection 
will    be    obviated,    and    such    agree- 


600 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  348 


ing/^  a  bill  in  equity  will  not  lie.^*  If  there  has  been  a  conver- 
sion of  the  fund  by  the  attorney,  the  action  for  its  recovery  may 
sound  in  tort ;  ^®  but,  ordinarily,  conversion  cannot  be  predicated 
on  the  mere  failure  to  pay  the  money  over,  or  on  the  fact  that  it 
was  deposited  in  bank  in  the  attorney's  naine.^'''  Under  some  stat- 
utes, however,  an  attorney  who  neglects  to  comply  within  a  rea- 
sonable time  with  his  client's  demand  for  money  and  papers 
belonging  to  the  client,  but  held  by  the  attorney,  is  guilty  of  pro- 
fessional misconduct,  and  is  liable  as  for  a  misdemeanor,  or  in  an 
action  of  tort,  except  so  far  as  the  papers  and  moneys  are  subject 
to  the  attorney's  lien  for  his  professional  services ;  ^*  but,  even  in 
such  case,  an  attorney's  retention  in  good  faith  of  moneys  held 
by  him  for  his  client,  pending  the  settlement  of  an  honest  dis- 
agreement between  them  as  to  the  amount  justly  due  for  the  at- 
torney's services,  is  not  professional  misconduct  or  a  violation  of 
professional  duty,  and  does  not  make  him  liable  in  trover  to  the 
client.^^ 

§  348.  Pleading.  —  The  complaint  should  state  all  the  facts 
essential  to  a  recovery.^"  Thus  it  should  be  alleged  that  the  at- 
torney was  retained  to,  and  did,  collect  a  certain  sum,  which  he 


ment  may  also  be  implied  from  the 
course  of  dealinor  between  the  parties. 
Scott  r.  Lance,  21  Vt.  507.  See  also 
Smalley  v.  Soragen,  30  Vt.  2. 

14  See  svpra,  §  344. 

15  Marsh  i:.  Whitmore,  1  Hask. 
391,  16  Fed.  Cas.  No.  9,122;  Croth- 
ers  1-.  Lee,  29  Ala.  337;  Pfau  v.  Ful- 
lenwider,  102  111.  App.  499. 

18  Connecticut. — Pratt  v.  Brewster, 
52  Conn.  65. 

Illinois. — Tinkham  v.  Hcyworth,  31 
111.    519. 

Indiana. — Clegg  v.  Baumbcrger,  110 
Ind.  539,  9  N.  E.  700. 

]Ve«?  York. — Stage  ;;.  Stevens,  1 
Denio  267;  Yatos  v.  Blodgett,  S  How. 
Pr.  278;  Sinclair  i:.  lliggins.  111  Aj)p. 
l)iv.  20(i,  97  X.  V.  S.  415. 


South  Dakota. — See  Jones  r.  Win- 
sor,  22   S.  D.  480,  118  N.   W.   716. 

Texas. — See  Flanagan  r.  Pearson, 
42  Tex.   1,  19  Am.  Rep.  40. 

17  Jackson  r.  Moore,  72  App.  Div. 
217,  7G  X.  Y.  S.  164;  Gopen  v.  Craw- 
ford, 53  How.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  278;  Pierce 
V.  Palmer,  31  R.  I.  432,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912B  181,  77  Atl.  201;  Cotton  r. 
Sharpstein,  14  Wis.  226,  80  Am.  Dec. 
774. 

18  l^ohinson  r.  liawos,  56  Mich.  135, 
22   N.  W.   222. 

19  Robinson  v.  Hawes,  50  Mich.  135, 
22  N.  W.  222. 

20  Chappell  V.  Hawkins,  30  Ga. 
750;  Goss  Printing  Press  Co.  r.  Todd, 
202  Mass.  185,  88  N.  E.  780;  Grin- 
nell  V.  Sherman,  CO  Hun  578  mem.,  14 
N.  Y.  S.  544. 


§  349] 


exfokceme:n't  of  liability. 


601 


failed  to  pay  over  to  the  plaintiff,^^  though  demand  therefor  was 
duly  made  upon  him ;  or,  if  there  has  been  no  demand,  facts  con- 
stituting a  waiver  thereof  should  be  alleged;  ^  where,  however,  a 
demand  is  not  necessary  prior  to  the  institution  of  suit,^  it  need 
not  be  alleged.^  Nor  is  the  plaintiff  bound  to  furnish  a  bill  of 
particulars  unless  so  ordered.* 

§  349.  Proof.  —  It  is  essential  that  the  plaintiff  should  prove 
the  employment  of  the  attorney  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  col- 
lection;  ^  that  the  collection  was,  in  fact,  made;^  and,  where  a 


21  ArAan-sas.  —  Cummins  r.  Mc- 
Lain,  2  Ark.  413;  Peay  v.  Ringo,  22 
Ark.  68. 

California. — Horn  v.  Hamilton,  89 
Cal.  276,  26  Pac.  833. 

Kansas. — Dobbs  v.  Campbell,  06 
Kan.  805,  72  Pac.  273. 

Maine. — Wilson  r.  Russ,  20  ]Me. 
421. 

yebrasJca. — Fletcher  v.  Cummings, 
33  Neb.  793,  51  N.  W.  144. 

^Alabama. — Mardis  v.  Shackleford, 
4  Ala.  493;  Macdonald  v.  State,  143 
Ala.  101,  39  So.  257;  McCarley  v. 
White,  144  Ala.  662,  39  So.  978. 

Arkansas. — Cummins  r.   McLain,  2  . 
Ark.  402 ;  Denton  v.  Embury,  10  Ark. 
228:   Leigh  r.  Williams,  64  Ark.  165, 
41    S.   W.    323. 

California. — Cox  r.  Delmas,  99  Cal. 
104,  33  Pac.  836. 

Indiana. — Black  v.  Hersch,  18  Ind. 
342,  81  Am.  Dec.  362;  Walpole  v. 
Bishop,  31  Ind.  156;  Whinery  v. 
Brown,  36  Ind.  App.  276,  75  N.  E. 
605. 

loica. — Johnson  v.  Semple,  31  la. 
49. 

Kentucky. — Ellis  V.  Henry,  5  J.  J. 
:Marsh.   248. 

Michigan. — Pierce  v.  Underwood, 
103  Mich.  62,  61  X.  W.  344. 

Missouri. — Beardslee  v.  Boyd,  37 
Mo.   180. 


\ebraska. — Fletcher  r.  Cummings, 
33  Xeb.  793,  51  X.  W.  144. 

yew  York. — Starr  v.  Vanderheyden, 
9  Johns.  253,  6  Am.  Dec.  275 ;  Taylor 
V.  Bates,  5  Cow.  376;  Rathbun  v. 
Ingals,  7  Wend.  320;  Bolianan  v. 
Peterson,  9  Wend.  503:  Walradt  v. 
Maynard,  3  Barb.  584;  Reed  V.  Hay- 
ward,  82  App.  Div.  416,  81  X.  Y.  *S. 
608;  Cartier  v.  Spooner,  118  App. 
Div.  342,  103  X.  Y.  S.  505;  Banner 
V.  D'Auby,  34  Misc.  525,  69  X.  Y. 
S.  891. 

South  Carolina. — Gladden  v.  Watts, 
59  S.  C.  81,  37  S.  E.  209;  Metz  v. 
Abney,  64  S.  C.  254,  42  S.  E.  103. 

Utah. — Everett  r.  Jones,  32  Utali 
489,  91  Pac.  300. 

2  See  supra,  §  340  notes. 

3  Shepherd  r.  Crawford,  71  Ga.  458. 

4  West  r.  Brewster,  1  Duer  (N, 
Y.)    647. 

5  Wellenbrock  r.  Speckert,  55  S  W. 
200,  21  Ky.  L.  Rep.  1309;  Pnisa  r. 
Everett,  86  Xeb.  456,  125  X.  W.  1076; 
Forerty  v.  Jordan,  2  Robt.  (X.  Y.) 
319. 

Proof  that  an  attorney  represented 
the  holder  of  a  note  in  an  action 
thereon,  is  sufficient  evidence  that 
it  was  placed  in  his  hands  for  col- 
lection. Bonnell  r.  Prince,  11  Tex. 
Civ.  App.  399,  32  S.  W.  855. 

6  Wilson  v.  Russ,  20  Me.  421 ;  Kuhn 


602 


EXFOECEMEXT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  350 


demand  is  a  condition  precedent  to  suit/  the  fact  that  such  a  de- 
mand was  made,^  and  that  the  attorney  refused  to  pay  over  the 
fund  to  his  client ;  and  any  other  fact  which,  under  the  circum- 
stances, may  be  essential  to  recovery.^  A  conflict  of  evidence  pre- 
sents a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury.^° 

§  350.  Defenses  Generally.  —  Where  the  plaintiff  presents  a 
prima  facie  case,  the  burden  of  establishing  his  defense  rests,  of 
course,  upon  an  attorney  who  has  been  sued  because  of  his  fail- 
ure to  pay  over  money  collected  for  his  client.^^  As  to  what  con- 
stitutes a  good  defense,  and  what  is  available  for  that  purpose,  the 
facts  in  each  case  must  speak  for  themselves.     The  attorney  may 


V.  Hunt,  2  Brev.  (S.  C.)  1G4:  Hall 
f,    Wright,   9   Rich.   L.    (S.    C.)    392. 

In  an  action  against  an  attorney 
to  compel  him  to  account  for  notes 
put  in  his  hands  for  collection,  his 
failure  to  produce  or  make  any  ex- 
planation concerning  them,  was  held 
to  be  evidence  that  the  money  had 
been  collected  and  misused,  and  that 
he  was  properly  charged  therewith. 
Wiley   V.   Logan,   95   X.   C.   358. 

Wliere  an  attorney,  upon  his 
client's  demanding  twenty  dollars 
collected  by  him  on  a  chattel  mort- 
gage, wrote  in  reply  that  as  soon  as 
he  collected  the  remainder  he  would 
'•straighten  up,"  there  is  sufficient 
proof  of  his  having  collected  the 
twenty  dollars.  Mahler  v.  Hyraan, 
17  N.  Y.  S.  588. 

7  See  supra,   §   346. 

8  Satterlee  v.  Frazer,  2  Sandf.  (X. 
Y.)  141;  Banner  r.  D'Auby,  34  Misc. 
525,  69  X\  Y.  S.  89]. 

Demand  Presumed. — In  the  absence 
of  proof,  it  will  be  presumed  that  an 
attorney,  liaving  collected  money, 
gave  notice  thereof,  and  the  client 
made  demand  therefor,  within  a  rea- 
sonable time.  Voss  V.  Bachop,  6 
Kan.  5'J. 


9  German  r.  Brown,  145  Ala.  364, 
39  So.  742;  Ross  v.  Gerrish,  8  Allen 
(Mass.)    147. 

Evidence  held  insufficient  to  war- 
rant a  finding  that  defendant  had  re- 
ceived more  than  he  had  accounted 
for  to  complainant.  Sawdey  v. 
Barnes,    (Wash.)    132   Pac.  225. 

10  Boyett  v.  Payne,  141  Ala.  475,  37 
So.  585 ;  Gray  v.  Conyers,  70  Ga. 
349;  C.  Aultman  &  Co.  v.  Goldsmith, 
84  Iowa  547,  51  N.  W.  43;  Shoe- 
maker V.  Stiles,  102  Pa.  St.  549. 

11  California. — McRaven  v.  Damer- 
on,  82   Cal.  57,  23  Pac.  33. 

Georgia. — Shepherd  v.  Crawford,  71 
Ga.   458. 

loiva. — Shropshire  v.  Ryan,  111  la. 
G77,  82  X.  W.  1035;  Youngerman  v. 
Pugh,  125  X.  W.  321. 

Maine. — Burnham  v.  Heselton.  82 
:Me.  495,  20  Atl.  80,  9  L.R.A.  90. 

Massachusetts.  —  Illustrated  Card, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Dolan,  208  Mass.  53,  94 
X.  E.  299. 

Michifjan. — Reynolds  r.  Cavanagh, 
139  Mich.  387,  102  X.  W.  980,  U  De- 
troit Leg.  XT,  90]. 

Xebraska. — Hamilton  r.  Allen,  86 
Xeb.  401,  ]25  X.  W.  610,  28  L.R.A. 
(X.S.)    723. 


§  350] 


ENFORCKMENT  OF  I.I  A  I!I  LIT  V, 


G03 


show  that  he  was  compelled  to  pay  over  the  money  in  garnish- 
ment proceedings/^  but  it  is  no  defense  to  show  that  he  was  noti- 
fied, by  persons  claiming  to  be  interested  in  the  fund,  not  to  pay 
over  the  money  collected  to  the  plaintiff.^^  Xor  can  an  attorney 
defend  on  the  ground  that  the  money  received  by  him  should 
have  been  paid  to  another  person  instead,^^  or  that  there  is  a  mo- 
tion pending  which  seeks,  summarily,  to  compel  him  to  pay  over 
the  money  for  which  the  suit  was  brought,^*  or  that  he  himself  is 
also  a  creditor  of  the  person  paying  the  money,^®  or  that  the  plain- 
tiff corporation,  for  whom  the  fund  was  collected,  was  not  duly  in- 
corporated,^' or  that  his  client's  interest  in  the  fund  was  illegally 
acquired,'^'  or  that  the  client  is  not  the  owner  of  the  fund,'^^  or  that 
he  tendered  payment  in  depreciated  currency.^"  The  fact  that  a 
client  executed  a  satisfaction  of  a  mortgage  in  the  hands  of  her 
attorney  for  collection,  does  not  raise  a  presumption  that  the  at- 
torney has  accounted  to  her  for  the  money  collected  by  him.^  So, 
a  client  who  accepts  a  check  and  uses  the  same  as  part  payment  on 
account,  may  sue  for  the  balance  due,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 


'Sew  York. — In  re  Raby,  29  App. 
Div.  225,  51  N.  Y.  S.  552;  Eeed  v. 
Hayward,  82  App.  Div.  416,  81  N.  Y. 
S.  608;  Weber  r.  Werner,  138  App. 
Div.  127,  122  K  Y.  S.  943;  Harkavy 
V.  Zisman,  96   N.  Y.  S.  214. 

12  Scott  V.  Kirchbaum,  47  Neb.  331, 
66  K  W.  443.  See  also  supra, 
§  301. 

13  Jacobson  v.  Jones,  128  III.  App. 
55 ;  Dunn  r.  Vannerson,  7  How. 
(Miss.)  579.  But  see  supra,  §  328 
note. 

Payment  to  Attorney  hy  Mistake. 
— Where,  with  full  knowledge  of  the 
facts,  and  under  a  misapprehension 
only  as  to  the  law,  one  procures  the 
issuance  of  an  execution,  purchases 
the  property  at  a  sale  thereunder, 
and  pays  the  money  to  the  attorney 
of  the  execution  creditor,  the  latter 
is  entitled  to  recover   it  from  his  at- 


torney.    Hendrix   r.   Wright,   50   Mo. 
311.  ' 

14  In  re  Silvernail,  45  Hun  575,  10 
X.  Y.    St.  Rep.   588. 

15  Coopwood  r.  Baldwin,  25  Miss. 
129;  Reilly  i:  Provost,  98  App.  Div. 
208,  90  X.  Y.  S.  591;  Shanloy  v. 
McManus,  124  App.  Div.  935,  109  X. 
Y.  S.  434. 

16  Wilder  v.  Millard,  (Xeb.)  Ill  N. 
W.   156. 

l7McMath  V.  Com.,  12  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
251. 

18  Fogerty  r.  Jordan,  2  Robt.  (X. 
Y.)    319. 

19  Case  V.  Ranney,  (Mich.)  140  N. 
W.  943;  Mahler  v.  Hyman,  17  X. 
Y.  S.   588. 

20  Van  Vacter  v.  Brewster,  1  Smedes 
&    M.    (Miss.)    400. 

1  Douglass  r.  Murray,  26  N,  Y. 
Wkly.   Dig.   339. 


G04  EXFOECEMENT  OF   LIABILITY.  [§     351 

the  attorney  claimed  the  check  was  payment  in  full.^  Xor  does 
the  fact  that  a  check  received  in  payment  was  turned  over  to  the 
client,  relieve  the  attorney  for  his  failure  to  account  for  the  pro- 
ceeds thereof,  if  it  was  subsequently,  after  indorsement  by  the 
client,  returned  to  him  to  be  collected,  and  to  deduct  his  charges 
and  disbursements.'  So,  an  attorney  is  estopped  to  deny  that  he 
represented  one  for  whom  he  acted  without  authority.*  And  an 
attorney  who  has  rendered  an  account  to  his  client  covering  sev- 
eral years,  admitting  a  balance  due,  is  estopped  from  pleading 
mistakes  in  his  favor  as  an  equitable  defense  w^hen  sued  there- 
for.* Where  an  attorney  received  money  from  his  client  which 
it  was  afterwards  agreed  should  be  applied  to  the  attorney's  claim 
for  legal  services,  the  attorney,  when  sued  for  an  accounting,  was 
entitled  to  a  credit  for  the  amount  of  his  bill  for  services.®  Where 
an  attorney,  for  a  consideration,  fraudulently  agreed  to  the  dis- 
missal of  his  client's  action,  it  was  immaterial  to  her  right  to  an 
accounting  and  relief  against  the  attorney  whether  she  had  a  good 
cause  of  action  in  the  case  dismissed.' 

§  351.  Statute  of  Limitations. —  An  attorney  who  has  been 
sued  for  a  sum  collected  for  a  client  may,  undoubtedly,  set  up  the 
statute  of  limitations  in  bar  of  a  recovery,^  the  only  question  be- 
ing as  to  when  the  statute  begins  to  run.  In  several  jurisdictions 
the  rule  is  that,  in  the  absence  of  misrepresentation  or  fraudulent 
concealment  on  the  part  of  the  attorney,  the  statute  begins  to  run 
from  the  time  the  collection  was  made,  or  from  the  expiration  of  a 
reasonable  time  thereafter ;  ^  while  in  other  jurisdictions  the  rule 

2  Szok  r.  Crown,  33  Pa.  Super.  Ct.  8  .4rAonsas. — Denton  v.  Embury,  10 
612.  Ark.   228. 

3  Weber  v,  Werner,  138  App.  Div.  Kansas.— Yoss  v.  Bachop,  5  Kan. 
127,   122  N"."  Y.  S.  943.  •'''^• 

.  ^,  ,,     ,      ,         o  or-.  /-NT  Mississippi. — Cook     v.     Rives,     13 

4  Mf;I>arlancl   v.  Crarv.  8   Cow.    (N.  '^'^  ' 
,,  ,    .,,„                            ^                                 Smedes  &  M.  328,  53  Am.  Dec.  88. 

I'ennsylvania. — Downey    ?".    Garard, 

5  Cannon   v.   Sanford,   20   Mo.   App.       (,^   p,     "t^,     ^.j 
5')0  ""  .        .      ". 

■    ■  Virginia. — Kinney    V.    McClure,     1 

6  French    v.    Armstrong,    79    N.    J.       Rand.  287. 

Eq.   289,  82  Atl.   331.  9  District  of  Columhia. —CamphoU  v. 

7  Kelly  r.  Allin,  212  Mass.  327,  99  Wilson,  2  Mackey  497;  Jackson  v. 
K    E.   273.  Combs,  7  Mackey  608,  1  L.R.A.  742. 


§  351] 


EiMFOKCKMKXT  OF    LIABILITY'. 


{\0o 


is  that  the  statute  does  not  begin  to  run  until  payment  has  been 
demanded  by  the  client,^"  In  some  states,  while  it  is  conceded 
that  an  action  cannot  be  maintained  against  an  attorney  for  money 
collected  by  him,  as  such,  until  demand  and  refusal  to  pay  over, 
or  neglect  of  the  attorney  to  notify  his  client  of  the  collection,  yet 
the  rule  prevails  that  where  the  client  has  notice  of  the  collection 
he  must  make  his  demand  within  a  reasonable  time,  and  if  he  neg- 
lects to  do  so  he  puts  in  motion  the  statute  of  limitations.  And 
where  the  client  coidd  with  ordinary  diligence  have  known  of 
the  collection,  the  statute  begins  to  run  after  the  lapse  of  a  reason- 
able time  for  demand. ^^     The  ]Srew  York  code  substantially  pro- 


Illinois. — Cagwin  v.  Ball,  2  111. 
App.   70. 

Maine. — Coffin  v.  Coffin,  7  Grcenl. 
298,  limiting  Staples  v.  Staples,  4 
Greenl.    532. 

Minnesota. — Mast  v.  Easton,  33 
Minn.  161,  22  N.  W.  253. 

Mississippi. — See  Cook  v.  Rives,  13 
Smedes  &  M.  329,  53  Am.  Dec.  88; 
Hudson  v.  Kimbrough,  74  Miss.  341 , 
20  So.  885. 

l^ebraska. — Campbell  r.  Roe,  32 
Neb.  345,  49  N.  W.  452. 

Ohio. — Douglas  f.  Corry,  46  Ohio 
St.  349,  21  N.  E.  440,  15  Am.  St.. 
Rep.    604. 

Pennsylvania. — Downey  v.  Garard, 
24  Pa.  St.  52;  Campbell  v.  Boggs.  48 
Pa.  St.  524,  sub  nom.  Glenn  v.  Cuttle, 
2  Grant  Cas.  273,  qualifying  Mc- 
Dowell V.  Potter,  8  Pa.  St.  189,  49 
Am.  Dec.  503,  and  overruling  in  ef- 
fect contrary  dictum  in  Derrickson 
V.  Cady,  7  Pa.  St.  27.  See  also  Rliines 
V.  Evans,  66  Pa.  St.  195,  5  Am.  Rep. 
364. 

Tennessee. — Hawkins  v.  Walker,  4 
Yerg.  188. 

10  Sneed  v.  Hanly,  Hempst.  6.j9,  22 
Fed.  Cas.  No.  13,136;  Voss  v.  Bachop, 
5  Kan.  59 ;  Cord  v.  Taylor,  5  Ky.  L. 
Rep.    852 ;    Roberts    V.    Armstrong,    1 


Bush  (Ky.)  263,  89  Am.  Dec.  624; 
Waring  v.  Richardson,  33  N.  C.  77; 
Hyman  v.  Gray,  49  N.  C.  155;  Eger- 
ton  V.  Logan,  81  N.  C.  172;  Knight 
V.  Killebrew,  86  N.  C.  400.  See  also 
Bryant  v.  Peebles,  92  N.  C.  176; 
Lever  v.  Lever,  1  Hill  Eq.  (S.  C.) 
62.  And  see  supra,  §  346,  as  to  tlie 
necessity   of  a   demand. 

The  reason  of  tliis  view  is  stated  in 
Sneed  v.  Hanly,  Hempst.  659,  22  Fed. 
Cas.  No.  13,136,  wherein  the  court 
said:  "For  the  protection  of  the 
attorney,  the  law  is  settled  that  he 
is  not  subject  to  an  action  as  to 
moneys  collected,  nor  to  interest  on 
such  moneys,  until  the  trust  is  ended 
by  some  of  the  means  indicated  [de- 
mand or  directions  to  remit].  The 
cause  of  action  accrues  at  that  point 
of  time;  and  as  it  would  be  unjust  to 
subject  an  attorney  to  an  action  be- 
fore he  is  tlius  put  in  default,  so,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  would  be  equally 
unjust  to  allow  him  to  obtain  an 
advantage  over  his  client,  while  trust 
relations  exist  between  them." 

^'^  Alabama.  —  See  Bromberv  r. 
Sands,  127  Ala.  411,  30  So.  510,  jol- 
loicing  Kimbro  r.  Waller,  21  Ala. 
376. 

Arkansas. — Jett    r.    Hempstead,    25 


606 


EXl-OIJCEME2\T  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§    351 


Tides  that  the  statute  of  limitations  does  not  begin  to  run  until 
the  client  has  actual  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  collection  has 
been  made.^^  J^otwithstanding  these  differences,  however,  it  is 
universally  held  that,  whenever  the  attorney,  by  misrepresenta- 
tion or  fraud,  conceals  the  fact  that  collection  has  been  effected, 
the  statute  does  not  begin  to  run  until  the  client  receives  knowl- 
edge that  the  attorney  has  made  the  collection,  or  until  the  time 
when  reasonable  diligence  would  have  discovered  that  fact.^^  The 
running  of  the  statute  may,  of  course,  be  tolled  in  cases  of  this 
character  as  effectivelv  as  in  other  cases.'^* 


Ark.  462,  limiting  Denton  v.  Embury. 
10  Ark.  229;  Whitehead  v.  Wells.  29 
Ark.  99;  Leigh  r.  Williams.  64  Ark. 
165,  41   S.  W.  323. 

Georgia. — Schofield  v.  Woolley,  98 
Ga.  548,  25  S.  E.  769,  58  Am.  St. 
Rep.  315.  See  also  Teasley  v.  Brad- 
ley, 110  Ga.  497,  35  S.  E.  782,  78  Am. 
St.   Rep.   113. 

Missouri. — ]\IcClurg  v.  Hill,  7  Mo. 
App.  579;  Donahue  r.  Bragg,  49  Mo. 
App.  273.  See  also  Carder  v.  Primm, 
52  Mo.  App.  102,  disapproving  Ault- 
mann,  etc.,  Co.  r.  Adams,  35  Mo.  App. 
503. 

12  N.  Y.  Code  Civ.  Pro.  §  410  (1). 
See  also  Bronson  v.  Munson,  29  Hun 
54;  Christ  v.  Chetwood,  1  Misc.  418, 
20  N.  Y.  S.  841,  affirmed  3  :Misc.  614, 
22  N.  Y.  S.  1133,  3  Misc.  640,  23  N. 
Y.  S.  1160.  See  also  Birckhead  r. 
De  Forest,  120  Fed.  645,  57  C.  C.  A. 
107;  Grinnell  v.  Sherman.  60  Hun 
578  mem.,  14  N.  Y.  S.  544;  Wood  r. 
Young,  141   N.  Y.  218,  36  N.  E.   193. 

13  United  States. — Birckhead  r. 
De  Forest,  120  Fed.  645,  57  C.  C.  A. 
107. 

Alabama. — Porter  v.  Smith,  65  Ala. 
169. 

ArLansas. — .Jctt  V.  Hempstead,  25 
.\rk.  462. 

Illinois. —  Fortune  r.  Knglisli,  226 
111.  262,  9  Ann.  Cas.  77,  80  N.  K.  781, 


117  Am.  St.  Rep.  253,  12  L.R.A. 
(N.S.)    1005. 

lotca. — Wilder  v.  Secor,  72  Iowa 
161,  33  N.  W.  448,  2  Am.  St.  Rep.  236. 

Kansas. — Voss  V.  Bachop,  5  Kan. 
59 ;  Stinson  V.  Aultman,  etc.,  Co.,  54 
Kan.  537,  38  Pac.  788. 

Mississippi.  — -  Hudson  v.  Kim- 
brough,  74  Miss.  341,  20  So.  885,  de- 
cided under  statute  of  limitations 
expressly  excepting  fraudulent  con- 
cealment, and  refusing  to  follow  Cook 
r.  Rives,  13  Smedes  &  M.  329.  53  Am. 
Dec.  88,  wherein,  in  the  absence  of 
such  an  express  exception,  it  was  held 
that  fraudulent  concealment  did  not 
prevent  the  running  of  the  statute. 

Missouri. — Aultman,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Adams,  35  Mo.  App.  503 :  Aultman, 
etc.,  Co.  V.  Loring,  70  Mo.  Apj).  66. 

New  York. — Bronson  r.  Munson, 
29  Hun  54. 

Pennsylvania. — McDowell  r.  Potter, 
8  Pa.  St.  189,  49  Am.  Dec.  503.  ex- 
plained in  Campbell  V.  Boggs,  48  Pa. 
St.  524;  Morgan  v.  Tener,  83  Pa.  St. 
305;  Wickersliam  r.  Lee,  83  Pa.  St. 
416;  Glenn  ;;.  Cuttle,  2  Drant  Cas. 
273.  See  also  McCoon  r.  Galbraith. 
29  Pa.  St.  293. 

Texas. — Bonner  v.  McCreary,  35  S. 
AV.  197. 

14  Torrence   r.  Strong,  4    Ore.  ?,'.). 


352,  353]  EXFOKCKMKXT  OF  LIAIUI.ITV, 


00 : 


§  352.  Set-Off  and  Counterclaim.  —  The  attorney  may  also 
allege  iu  his  defense  any  set-oil'  or  eonnterclaini  which  he  may 
have/*  such,  for  instance,  as  a  lien,^®  or  other  claim  for  compen- 
sation ;  "  and  it  has  been  held  that  this  defense  may  be  proved 
under  the  general  issue.^^  But  where  the  case  has  been  tried  in 
the  court  below  on  another  theory,  the  defendant  cannot,  on  ap- 
peal, claim  an  attorney's  lien  as  his  defense. ^^ 

§  353.  Recovery.  —  The  amount  of  the  recovery  is  usually 
the  sum  collected  ^°  and  interest  thereon  from  the  time  the  fund 
should  have  been  paid  over  to  the  client,^  less  any  sum  due  the 


15  Scobey  i\  Ross,  5  Ind.  445 ; 
Xoble  V.  Leary,  37  Ind.  186. 

16  Reynolds  V.  Cavanagh,  130  Mich. 
387,  102  N.  W.  986,  11  Detroit  Leg. 
N.  901;  Patrick  r.  Hazen,  10  Vt.  183. 

17  District  of  Columbia. — Dale  v. 
Richards,  21  D.  C.  312. 

Illinois. — Bingham  v.  Spruill,  97 
111.  App.  374. 

Indiana. — Scobey  v.  Ross,  5  Ind. 
445. 

Kentucky. — Good  in  v.  Hays,  88  S. 
W.  1101,  28  Ky.  L.  Rep.  112. 

Missouri. — Jenkins  V.  Clopton,  141 
Mo.  App.  74,  121  S.  W.  759. 

New  York. — Weber  v.  Manheimer, 
23  Misc.  157,  50  N.  Y.  S.  668;  Gopen 
r.  Crawford,  53  How.  Pr.  278. 

0/ito.— Fargo  Gaslight  &  Coke  Co. 
r.  Greer,  10  Ohio  Cir.  Dec.  164,  18 
Oliio  Cir.  Ct.  589. 

Tennessee. — Foster  v.  Jackson,  8 
Baxt.  433. 

Vermont. — Patrick  v.  Hazen,  10 
Vt.  183. 

Where  the  client  died,  and  after- 
wards the  attorneys  collected  the 
nionej',  it  was  held  that,  in  the  admin- 
istrator's suit  to  recover  the  money 
from  them,  they  could  not  set  off  the 
sum  due  for  their  services  before  the 
client's    death,    but    miglit    for    those 


rendered  afterwards.  Lewis  v.  Ki- 
ncaly,  2  Mo.  App.  33. 

As  to  evidence  of  difficulty  of  case 
as  corroborating  attorney's  testimony 
as  to  compensation  agreement,  see 
Brock  V.  Brock,  47  Pa.  Super.  Ct. 
321. 

"Patrick  r.  Hazen,  10  Vt.  183. 

iSArmitage  r.  Sullivan,  69  Iowa 
426.  29  N.  W.  399. 

20  Nisbet  i\  Lawson,  1  Ga.  275: 
Commonwealth  Bank  r.  Patton,  4 
J.  J.  Marsh.  (Ky.)  190;  Smalley  r. 
Soragen,  30  Vt.  2. 

1  As  a  general  rule,  an  attorney  is 
only  chargeable  with  interest  on  sums 
collected  for  his  client  where,  after 
demand,  he  has  refused  to  pay  it 
over:  or  where  he  has  concealed  the 
fact  of  the  collection,  or  used  the  fund 
for  his  own  purposes,  or  has  been 
guilty  of  some  other  wrong  in  con- 
nection with  the  collection  thereof. 

United  l^tates. — Sneed  r.  Hanly, 
Hempst.  659,  22  Fed.  Cas.  No.  13.136. 

Alabama. — Smith  r.  Alexander,  87 
Ala.  387,  6  So.  51. 

California. — Andrews  v.  Wilbur,  41 
Pac.  790. 

Georgia. — Nisbet  v.  Lawson,  1  Ga. 
275. 


608 


EXFOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  354 


attorney  by  way  of  set-off  or  counterclaim,^  with  interest  thereon,' 
though  frequently  the  facts  in  each  case  must  be  consulted  as  to 
the  measure  of  damages.* 


Summary  Proceedings. 

§  354.  Right  to  Proceed  Summarily  for  Recovery  of 
Money.  —  The  duty  of  an  attorney  to  pay  over  money  collected 
for  his  client  may  be  enforced  summarily,^  and  the  same  power 


Illinois. — Chapman  r.  Burt,  77  111. 
337;  Ketcham  r.  Thorp,  91  111.  611. 

Indiana. — Walpole  v.  Bishop,  31 
Ind.   156. 

Iowa. — Mansfield  r.  Wilkerson,  26 
Iowa  482;  Johnson  v.  Semple,  31 
Iowa  49. 

Kentucky. — Goodlin  v.  Hays,  88  S. 
W.  1101,  28  Ky.  L.  Eep.  112;  Cord  v. 
Taylor,  5  Ky.  L.  Rep.  852. 

Louisiana. — Dwight  v.  Simon,  4 
La.  Ann.  490. 

^ew  York. — Williams  r.  Storrs,  6 
Johns.  Ch.  353,  10  Am.  Dec.  340; 
Harkavy  v.  Zisman,  96  X.  Y.  S. 
214. 

Ohio. — State  v.  Ampt,  6  Ohio  Dec. 
(Reprint)   699,  7  Am.  L.  Rec.  469. 

Vermont. — Hauxhurst  r.  Hovey,  26 
Vt.  544. 

Virginia. — Rootes  r.  Stone,  2  Leigh 
650. 

2  Hover  r.  Heath,  3  Hun  (N.  Y.) 
283.     And  see  the  preceding   section. 

3  Hover  v.  Heatli,  3  Hun  (X.  Y.) 
283,  5  Thomp.  &  C.  488. 

4  See  Jordan  v.  Davis,  172  Mo.  599, 
72  S.  W.  686. 

Property  taken  in  payment.  Kelly 
V.  All  in,  212  Mass.  327,  99  N.  K. 
273. 

6  {'nitrd  States. — .Jcfrries  t".  i^aurie, 
23   Fed.  780,  27   Fed.   195. 


Alabama. — Boyett  v.  Payne,  141 
Ala.  475,  37  So.  585;  MacDonald  v. 
State,  143  Ala.  101,  39  So.  257. 

Colorado. — Ex  p.  Browne,  2  Colo. 
553. 

Georgia. — Murphy  r.  Justices,  11 
Ga.  331;  Foster  v.  Reid,  58  Ga.  221; 
Haygood  c.  McKenzie,  119  Ga.  466,  46 
S.  E.  624;  Haden  v.  Lovett,  133  Ga. 
388,  18  Ann.  Cas.  114,  05  S.  E.  853; 
Lane  r.  Brinson,  12  Ga.  App.  760,  78 
S.  E.  725. 

Iowa. — Cross  r.  Ackley,  40  la. 
493;  Downs  r.  Davis,  113  la.  529, 
85  N.  W.  781;  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav. 
Assoc.  V.  Soderquist,  115  la.  095,  87 
X.  W.  433;  Emanuel  v.  Cooper,  153 
la.  572,  133  X.  W.  1064;  Buttery  r. 
Wright,  117  X.  W.  31. 

Kentitcky. — Scott  v.  Wickliffe,  1 
B.  Mon.  353;  Thomas  v.  Roberts,  5 
Dana  189;  Board  of  Education  of 
Mercer  County  v.  Allin,  134  Ky.  763, 
121  S.  W.  070. 

Minnesota. —  l^andro  r.  Great  Xorth- 
ern  Pv.  Co.,  141  X.  W.  1103. 

Mississippi. — Dunn  r.  Vannerson, 
7    How.   579. 

Missouri. — State  c.  Clopton,  15 
.Mo.  App.  589. 

Xew  Jersey. — Mundy  r.  Scluintz,  52 
X.  J.  Eq.  744,  .30  Atl.  322. 

A'ew   York. — Ex   p.   Statts,   4   Cow. 


§  354] 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  LIAIIILITV. 


COU 


exists  as  to  an  unexpended  surplus  of  expense  money  received  from 
the  client.^  Jurisdiction  of  this  character  rests  upon  the  ground 
that  attorneys  are  officers  of  the  courts  wherein  tlicy  ])ractice — 
part  of  the  machinery  of  the  law  created  for  the  due  administra- 
tion of  justice — and,  therefore,  when  it  aj^pears  that  an  attorney 
has  received,  in  his  professional  capacity,  any  moneys  which  his 
duty  requires  him  to  pay  over  to  his  client,  the  court,  if  necessary, 
will  exercise  its  summary  power  to  compel  him  to  do  so.'  In  the  ab- 
sence of  statutory  regulation,  which  exists  in  several  states,®  sum- 
mary proceedings   are   addressed  to  the   sound   discretion  of  the 


76;  People  v.  Smith,  3  Caines  221, 
Col.  &  C.  Cas.  497;  In  re  Grant.  17 
How.  Pr.  260,  8  Abb.  Pr.  357 ;  Saxton 
V.  Wyckoff,  6  Paige  182;  Barry  v. 
Whitney,  3  Sandf.  696;  In  re  Fried- 
man, 27  Hun  301;  In  re  Mertian,  29 
Hun  459;  In  re  Silvernail,  45  Hun 
575.  10  N.  Y.  St.  Pep.  588;  In  re 
H  — ,  87  N.  Y.  521;  Forstman  v. 
Schulting.  108  N.  Y.  110,  15  iS".  E. 
366;  Matter  of  Lexington  Ave.,  30 
App.  Div.  602,  52  X.  Y.  S.  203, 
affirmed  without  opinion  17  N.  Y. 
678,  51  N.  E.  1092;  Pritchard  v. 
Marvin,  33  App.  Div.  639,  56  N.  Y.  S. 
974,  affirmed  158  N.  Y.  667,  53  N.  E. 
1131;  Dailey  v.  Wellbrock,  65  App. 
Div.  523,  72  N.  Y.  S.  848;  In  re  Pol- 
lock, 69  App.  Div.  499,  74  N.  Y.  S. 
976;  Cartier  r.  Spooner,  118  App. 
Div.  342,  103  N.  Y.  S.  505;  People  v. 
Feenaughty,  51  Misc.  468,  101  X.  Y. 
S.  700;  Matter  of  Gardner,  56  Misc. 
272,  106  N.  Y^  S.  417;  Porter  r. 
Parmly,  39  Super.  Ct.  219;  Sprague 
V.  Horton,  18  N.  Y.  S.  165;  In  re 
Klein,  101  N".  Y.  S.  663;  In  re  Mcin- 
tosh, 112  N.  Y.  S.  513. 

Pennsylvania. — Clark  v.  Clark,  17 
W.  N.  C.  400. 

Rhode  Island. — Anderson  r.  Bos- 
Attys.  at  L.  Vol.  I.— 39. 


wortii,  15  Pv.  I.  443,  8  Atl.  339,  2  Am. 
St.  Rep.  910. 

6  Anderson  r.  New  York  &  H.  R. 
Co.,  150  App.  Div.  432,  135  N.  Y.  S. 
30. 

7  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  v.  So- 
derquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  N.  W.  433; 
Emanuel  v.  Cooper,  153  Iowa  572,  133 
N.  W.  1064;  Lynde  v.  Lynde,  64  N.  J. 
Eq.  736,  52  Atl.  694,  58  L.R.A.  471, 
reversing  50  Atl.  659.  See  also 
Downs  V.  Davis,  113  Iowa  529,  85 
X.  W.  781;  In  re  Dakin,  4  Hill  (X. 
Y.)   42. 

8  Indiana. — See  Dawson  r.  Comp- 
ton,  7  Blackf.  421. 

Mississippi. — Banks  v.  Cage,  1 
How.  293;  Sloan  r.  Johnson,  14 
Smedes  &  M.  47:  Lombard  v.  Wiiit- 
ing,  Walk.  229 ;  McCrcary  v.  Hoopos, 
25   Miss.  428. 

New  ro?7w— Matter  of  Schell,  58 
Hun  440,  12  N.  Y.  S.  790,  affirmed 
128  X.  Y.  67,  27  X.  E.  957. 

Ohio. — ^Longworth  r.  Handy,  2  Dis- 
ney 75;  Cotton  r.  Ashley,  5  Ohio  Cir. 
dJc.  6,  11  Ohio  Cir.  Ct.  47. 

Virginia.— Taylor  v.  Armstead,  3 
Call  200.  And  see  the  cases  cited  in 
the   preceding   note. 


GIO 


ENFOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  355 


court.^     There  is  no  distinction  between  attorneys  and  counsel  in 
this  respect.^" 

§  355.  Right  to  Proceed  Summarily  for  Other  Purposes.  — 
While,  as  seen  in  the  foregoing  section,  the  right  to  proceed  sum- 
marily is  most  frequently  employed  as  a  means  to  compel  the  pay- 
ment over  of  money  collected  by  an  attorney,  still,  its  usefulness 
is  by  no  means  confined  to  that  end ;  and  it  is  Avell  settled  that  the 
court  may  exercise  its  summary  powers  to  compel  the  performance 
of  any  other  professional  duty  which  counsel  owe  either  to  their 
clients  or  to  the  court,  and  which,  in  its  nature,  is  one  requiring 
summary  action  in  order  to  maintain  the  respect  owing  to  the  court, 
or  the  integrity  due  to  the  client. ^^  Thus  the  court,  upon  general 
principles  of  equity  and  policy,  will  always  look  into  the  dealings 
between  attorneys  and  their  clients,  and  guard  the  latter  from 
any  disadvantage  resulting  from  a  situation  in  which  the  par- 
ties stand  unequal. ^^  Such  jurisdiction,  however,  will  always  be 
exercised  with  great  prudence  and  caution,  and  a  sedulous  regard 
for  the  rights  of  the  client  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  attorney 
on  the  other.^^  A  summary  proceeding  will  be  sustained  in  order 
to  enforce  the  delivery  of  documents  belonging  to  the  client,  and 
which  it  appears  the  attorney  has  no  authority  to  retain.'^*    So,  on 


9  Saxton  V.  Wyckoff,  6  Paige  (N. 
Y.)  I82:  Ackerman  r.  Ackcrraan,  14 
Abb.  Pr.  (N.  Y.)  229;  Porter  v. 
Parmly.  39  Super.  Ct.  (N.  Y.)  234:  In 
re  Schell,  128  N.  Y.  67,  27  N.  E.  957, 
affirming  58  Hun  440,  12  N.  Y.  S. 
790;  Keeney  c.  Tredwell,  71  App. 
Div.  521,  75  N.  Y.  S.  1097 :  Tn  re 
Xellis,  J16  App.  Div.  04,  101  N.  Y.  S. 
698;  Hess  v.  Finck,  133  App.  Div. 
654,  118  N.  Y.  S.  171;  In  re  Hitch- 
ings,  157  Api).  Div.  392,  142  N.  Y.  R. 
339. 

10  Niven's  'I'rial,  1  Wlnci.  Criiii. 
(N.  Y.)   337  not.'. 

11  fn  re  Aitkcii,  4  P..  &  Alil.  47.  6 
E.  C.  L.  384;  Knianuel  r.  Cooper,  153 
la.   572,   133    N.    \V.    1064;    Kuljne   v. 


Daily,  23  Hun  (N.  Y.)  282;  Merritt 
V.  Lambert,  10  Paige  (N.  Y.)  352; 
Foster  v.  Townshend,  68  N.  Y.  203; 
Robertson  v.  Clocke,  18  App.  Div.  363, 
46  N.  Y.  S.  87. 

12  De  Rose  v.  Fay,  3  Edw.  (N.  Y^) 
369;  Starr  v.  Vanderheyden,  9  Johns. 
(N.  Y.)   253,  6  Am.  Dec.  275. 

As  to  dealings  between  attorney 
and  client,  see  supro,  §§  152-182. 

I3:\latter  of  H ,  87  N.  Y.  521. 

14  Matter  of  Wolf,  51  Hun  407,  4 
N.    Y.    S.    239,    foUoicing    Matter    of 

H ,  87  N.  Y.  521,  and  Matter  of 

Husaon.  26  Hun  (N.  Y.)  130.  And 
sec  Matter  of  Edward  Xcy  Co.,  114 
App.  Div.  467,  99  N.  Y.  S.  982. 


;5G] 


EXFOncK.ME.XT  OF   I-IAISILTTY, 


Gil 


an  allegation  of  ij'regularities,  summary  jurisdiction  has  been  ex- 
ercised in  relation  to  the  entry  of  judgments  by  an  attorney  against 
his  client.^*  A  suuiuuiry  proceeding  does  not  lie,  however,  for  in- 
jury occasioned  by  the  unauthorized  acts  or  the  negligence  of  an 
attorney;  ^^  in  such  cases  the  remedy  lies  elsewhere." 

§  356.  When  Right  Will  Be  Exercised.  —  While  the  court 
will,  in  a  proper  case,  make  a  summary  order  against  an  attorney 
to  compel  the  payment  over  of  fvmds  belonging  to  his  client,  it  will 
do  so  only  when  it  cannot  reasonably  be  disputed  that  there  has 
been  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  attorney,^^  as,  for  instance, 
where  there  is  an  honest  dispute  as  to  the  amount  of  compensa- 


15  Drapers  Co.  r.  Davis,  2  Atk. 
(Eng.)  295;  Starr  v.  Vaiulcrlieydeii. 
9  Johns.  (N.  Y.)  253.  6  Am.  Dec.  275; 
De  Rose  v.  Fay,  3  Edw.  Ch.  (N.  Y.) 
369. 

16  Lombard  r.  Whiting,  Walk. 
(Miss.)  229;  Banks  r.  Cage,  1  How. 
(Miss.)    293. 

17  See  supra,  §§  333-339. 

IS  England.— In  re  Hulm,  [1892]  2 
Q.  B.  261. 

United  States. — In  re  Paschal,  10 
Wall.  483,  19  U.  S.  (L.  ed.)  992; 
Jeffries  v.  Laurie,  23  Fed.  786. 

Alabama. — Macdonald  r.  State,  143 
Ala.  101,  39  So.  257. 

California. — Tomsky  v.  Superior 
Ct.,  131  Cal.  620,  63  Pac.  1020. 

Illinois. — People  v.  Ford,  54  111. 
520. 

loira. — See  Farrar  V.  Farrar,  104 
Iowa  621,  74  N.  W.  5. 

Kentucky. — Thomas  v.  Roberts,  5 
Dana    189. 

Louisiana. — Durnford  v.  Segliers,  9 
Mart.  0.  S.  470;  Oakey  v.  Duncan,  2 
Rob.  349. 

Michigan.  —  Rosentiial  v.  Dicker- 
man,  98  Mich.  208,  57  N.  W.  112,  39 
Am  St.  Rep.  535,  22  L.R.A.  693. 


Misfiissippi. — Banks  v.  Cage,  1 
How.  293. 

.Yew  Jersey. — Strong  v.  ^lundy,  52 
N.  J.  Eq.  833,  31   Atl.  611. 

New  York. — People  c.  Brotherson, 
36  Barb.  662;  People  v.  Smith,  3 
Caines  221;  (Jardiner  v.  Tyler,  30 
How.  Pr.  63;  People  r.  Wilson.  5 
Jolins.  368;  Matter  of  Bleakley,  5 
Paige  311;  Saxton  v.  Wyckoff,  6 
Paige  182;  In  ro  ^lartin,  73  App.  Div. 
505,  77  N.  Y.  S.  192;  Matter  of  Xellis, 
116  App.  Div.  94,  101  N.  Y.  S.  698; 
In  re  Chittenden,  25  N.  Y.  Wkly. 
Dig.  403;  Matter  of  Forster,  49  Ilun 
114,  1  N.  Y.  S.  619;  Post  V.  Evarts.  56 
Hun  641  mem.,  31  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  123, 
9  X.  Y.  S.  370;  Matter  of  Smyley,  71 
Hun  639  mem.,  46  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  824 ; 
Matter  of  Holland  Trust  Co.,  76  Hun 
323.  27  X.  Y.  S.  687;  Berks  r.  Hotcli- 
kiss,  82  Hun  27,  31  N.  Y.  S.  16;  Wil- 
merdings  r.  Fowler,  55  N.  Y.  641  ; 
In  re  Knapp,  85  N.  Y.  284. 

Rhode  Island. — Peirce  v.  Palmer, 
31  R.  I.  432,  Ann.  Cas.  1912B  181, 
77  Atl.  201;  Murray  v.  Lizotte,  31 
R.  I.  509,  77  Atl.  231. 

Texas. — Tramraell  V.  Shropsliire, 
22  Tex.  327. 


612 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIxVBILITY. 


[§     oOG 


tion.^^  It  is  for  the  court  to  say  when  and  under  what  circum- 
stances it  will  entertain  such  proceeding  against  its  officers,  upon 
the  application  of  the  client,  and  a  refusal  to  proceed  in  that  way 
is  not  the  denial  of  any  legal  right.^"  In  no  case  should  the  attor- 
ney be  summarily  compelled  to  pay  over  money  to  his  client  if  it 
appears  that  the  latter  is  not,  ex  cequo  et  bono,  entitled  to  it.^  But 
the  mere  assertion  of  a  counterclaim  is  not  such  a  dispute  as  will, 
of  itself,  oust  the  jurisdiction,^  because  the  court  has  the  power 
to  adjust  any  set-off  which  the  attorney  may  have  on  account  of 
fees  or  other  charges  due  to  him  in  connection  with  the  proceed- 
ing in  which  he  received  the  money  in  question,  or  as  the  result 
of  any  other  services  for  which  he  has  a  lien  on  money  of  his  client 
coming  into  his  hands. ^  The  good  faith  of  the  attorney  in  mak- 
ing such  counterclaim  is  immaterial.*     Where  one  member  of  a 


19  Hess  r.  Finck,  133  App.  Div.  654, 
118  X.  Y.  S.  171;  In  re  Harvey,  14 
Phila.  (Pa.)  287,  38  Leg.  Int.  204; 
In  re  Robb,  6  Pa.  Co.  Ct.  644;  Peirce 
V.  Palmer,  31  R.  I.  432,  Ann.  Cas. 
1912B  181,  77  All.  201. 

20  Brunings  v.  Townsend,  139  Cal. 
137,  72  Pac.  919. 

1  Hyman  v.  Washington,  2  McCord, 
L.  (S.  C.)  493. 

Only  Money  Collected. — On  a  mo- 
tion against  an  attorney  for  refusing 
to  pay  over  his  client's  money  when 
demanded,  he  can  only  be  charged 
with  the  amounts  he  actually  col- 
lected; and  he  cannot,  in  this  mode 
of  proceeding,  be  made  liable  for  fail- 
ing, tlirougii  negligence  or  other 
cause,  to  recover  for  the  full  amount 
due  Ilia  client.  Croft  v.  IIici<s,  26 
Tex.  383.  See  also  Banks  v.  Cage,  1 
How.   (Miss.)    293. 

2  Matter  of  Tracy,  1  App.  Div.  113, 
37  N.  Y.  S.  65,  affirmed  149  N.  Y.  608, 
44  X.  E.  1129. 

^  lovxi. — Union  Bldg.,  etc..  Assoc. 
r.  Soderquist,  115  la.  095,  87  N.  W. 
433. 


Mississippi. — Lombard  r.  Whiting, 
Walk.  229. 

New  Jersey. — Mundy  v.  Schantz,  52 
N.  J.   Eq.  744,  30  Atl.   322. 

New  York. — In  re  Knapp,  85  N.  Y. 
285;  Matter  of  Borkstrom,  63  App. 
Div.  7,  71  N.  Y.  S.  451,  affirmed  168 
N.  Y.  639,  61  N.  E.  1127:  Thomasson 
V.  Latourette,  63  App.  Div.  408,  71 
N.  Y.  S.  559;  Matter  of  Martin,  73 
App.  Div.  505,  77  N.  Y.  S.  192; 
Waterbury  v.  Eldridge,  1  Silvornail 
292,  52  Hun  614  mem.,  5  X.  Y.  S. 
324;  Ackerman  t".  Wagener,  55  Hun 
608  mem.,  5  Silvernail  443,  8  X.  Y.  S. 
457. 

Rhode  Island. — Burns  r.  Allen,  15 
Pv.  I.  32,  23  Atl.  35,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
844. 

Washington. — State  v.  Sachs,  3 
Wasli.  371,  28  Pac.  540. 

4  "In  Bowling  Green  Sav.  Bank  V. 
Todd,  52  X.  Y.  489,  it  was  held  that 
good  faitli  in  tiie  claim  made  by  the 
attorney  for  the  retention  of  the 
money  in  dispute  would  be  no  answer 
to  this  ])roceediTig  to  oblige  him  to 
j)ay  it  over.     Xi'ither  is  it  an  answer, 


§  ^^T] 


EXFORPEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


C13 


firiii  of  attorneys  received  plaintiff's  money  for  investment,  and, 
becoming  involved,  lost  the  same,  althongh  his  good  faith  was  not 
qnestioned,  his  partners  should  not  be  required  by  summary  mo- 
tion to  pay  over  to  petitiouer  the  amount  lost;  petitioner  having 
an  adequate  remedy  at  law,  iu  which  the  liability  of  the  parties 
miiilit  be  determined.^ 


§  357.  Professional  Relation  Must  Exist.  — The  rule  is  well 
settled  that  courts  have  no  sunnnary  jurisdiction  over  an  attorney 
to  compel  him  to  pay  over  moneys,  unless  the  relation  of  attorney 
and  client  exists  between  the  attorney  and  the  party  seeking  such 
summaiy  relief.®  Nor  can  the  court  acquire  jurisdiction  to 
proceed  summarily  against  an  attorney,  even  with  his  express 
consent,  for  the  nonpayment  of  a  debt  contracted  by  him  in  any 


within  this  authority,  that  a  dispute 
may  exist  between  himself  and  the 
applicant  concerning  the  fact  of  his 
lien  or  right  to  retain  the  money  to 
satisfy  a  demand  claimed  to  be  due 
to  him  for  the  performance  of  his 
services.  These,  on  the  contrary,  are 
facts  which  may  be  well  tried  in  the 
proceeding  itself,  and,  if  they  are 
found  upon  the  proof  against  tlie  at- 
torney, he  may  then  be  obliged 
to  pay  over  the  money  to 
the  applicant.  This  subject  was  still 
further  considered  in  Re  Knapp,  85 
N.  Y.  285,  and  the  authority  of  the 
preceding  case  was  again  sanctioned 
and  maintained;  and  the  law,  as  it 
has  been  stated  in  the  opinion  de- 
livered in  the  last  case,  fully  sus- 
tained the  power  of  the  court  over 
the  subject  by  a  summary  proceeding 
against  the  attorney,  and  its  juris- 
diction to  settle  all  disputes  arising 
as  to  the  right  to  the  money  in  con- 
troversy." Ackerman  v.  Wagner,  55 
Hun  608  mem.,  8  N.  Y.  S.  457. 

5  In    re    Hitchings,    157    App.    Div. 
392,  142  N.  Y.  S.  339. 


6  England. — In  re  Fenton,  3  Ad.  & 
El.  404,  30  E.  C.  L.  129;  Tylee  r. 
Webb,  14  Beav.  14;  Re  Harvey,  27 
Beav.  330;  Ex  p.  Faith,  9  iJowl.  973; 
Dixon  v.  Wilkinson,  4  Drew.  614,  4 
De  G.  &  J.  508;  Cocks  V.  Harman,  6 
East  404 ;  In  re  —  an  Attorney,  1 1 
Jur.  396 ;  In  re  Bryant,  50  L.  T.  N.  S. 
450:  Matter  of  Lord,  2  Scott  131,  30 
E.  C.  L.  430.  See  also  Ex  p.  Corpus 
Christi  College,  6  Taunt.  105,  1  E.  C. 
L.  325 ;  Ex  p.  Cobeldick,  12  Q.  B.  D. 
149,  49  L.  T.  N.  S.  741,  32  W.  R.  239; 
Ex  p.  Maxwell,  4  Dowl.  87;  Ex  p. 
Xicholls,  7  Jur.  374,  12  L.  J.  Q.  B. 
103,  2  Dowl.  N.  S.  423. 

Canada. — Matter  of  Osier,  ^lani- 
toba  r.  Wood  205;  Ex  p.  White  Sew- 
ing Mach.  Co.,  31  N.  Bruns.  237 ;  Wil- 
son V.  Beatty,  12  Ont.  App.  252;  Re 
McBrady,  19  Ont.  Pr.  37.  Compare 
Re  Carroll,  2  Ch.  Chamb.  (Ont.)  323; 
Re  Walker,  2  Ch.  Chamb.  (Ont.> 
324. 

Georj^m.— Haygood  v.  Haden,  119 
Ga.  463,  46  S.  E.  625;  Iladen  v.  Lo- 
vett,  133  Ga.  388,  18  Ann.  Cas.  114, 
65  S.  E.  853. 


614 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LTABTEITY. 


[i 


capacity  other  than  as  an  officer  thereof ;  '  for,  beyond  his  profes- 
sional relations,  he  would  have  the  same  rights  as  other  litigants.' 
If,  acting  in  any  other  capacity  for  another,  an  attorney  receives 
money,  the  remedy  for  its  nonpayment  is  by  action  only.^  Of 
course,  where  his  employment  is  so  connected  with  his  professional 
character  as  to  afford  a  presumption  that  his  occupation  formed 
the  ground  of  his  employment,  the  court  may  interfere  in  a  sum- 


loua. — Downs  v.  Davis,  113  Iowa 
529.  85  N.  W.  781. 

Mississippi. — Sloan  v.  Johnson,  14 
Smedes  &  M.  47 ;  McCreary  v.  Hoopes, 
25  Miss.  428. 

Keio  Jersey. — Crane  r.  Giirnee,  75 
X.  J.  Eq.  104,  71  Atl.  338;  Koenig  r. 
Hained,  13  Atl.  236. 

Xeic  York. — In  re  Langslow,  167 
X.  Y.  314,  60  X.  E.  590;  In  re  Xiag- 
ara.  etc..  Power  Co.,  203  X.  Y.  493, 
Ann.  Cas.  1913B  234,  97  X.  E.  33,  38 
L.R.A.(XLS.)  207;  Matter  of  Hille- 
brandt,  33  App.  Div.  191,  53  X.  Y^  S. 
352 ;  Taylor  r.  Long  Island  R.  Co.,  38 
App.  Div.  595,  56  X.  Y.  S.  665;  Matter 
of  Cattus,  42  App.  Div.  134,  59  X.  Y. 
S.  55;  Matter  of  Redmond,  54  App. 
Div.  454.  66  X.  Y.  S.  782;  Matter  of 
Xeville,  71  App.  Div.  102,  75  N.  Y.  S. 
588;  Matter  of  Hirshbach,  72  App. 
Div.  79,  76  X.  Y.  S.  117;  Matter  of 
Edward  Xey  Co.,  114  App.  Div.  467 
09  X.  Y.  S.  982;  Minnesota  Phono 
graph  Co.  v.  Tomlinson,  148  App 
Div.  56,  132  X.  Y.  S.  1063;  In  re 
Hammann,  37  Misc.  417,  75  X.  Y.  S 
775;  People  V.  Feenanglity,  51  Misc 
468,  101  X.  Y.  S.  700;  111  re  Dakin,  4 
imi  42;  In  re  Ilaskiii.  IS  Ilun  43;  In 
If  Ilusson,  26  1 1  tin  130;  Matter  of 
Scli.-ll,  58  Hun  440,  12  X.  Y.  S.  790, 
appeal  dismisHrd  128  X.  Y.  67,  27  X. 
i:.  '.i.-i7:  Miilt.T  of  Sanly,  65  Hun  619 
iiu'iii.,  19  N.  V.  S.  575;  Boweii  r. 
Smidt,  66  Hun  627  mem.,  20  X.  V.  S. 
735;    Hess    f.    Joseph,    7    Robt.    609. 


See  Burr's  Case,  1  Wheel.  Crini.  513. 
See  also  Bohanan  v.  Peterson,  9 
Wend.  503. 

Ohio. — LongA^'orth  v.  Handy,  2  Dis- 
ney 75. 

Pennsylvania. — In  re  Kennedy,  120 
Pa.  St.  497,  14  Atl.  397,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  724. 

Rhode  Island. — Windsor  /;.  Brown, 
15  R.  I.  182,  9  Atl.  135,  2  Am.  St. 
Rep.  892. 

7  In  re  Langslow,  167  X.  Y.  314, 
60  X.  E.  590,  modifying  52  App.  Div. 
635,  66  X.  Y.  S.  1135;  In  re  Hitch- 
ings,  157  App.  Div.  392,  142  X.  Y.  S. 
339. 

8  Georgia. — Haden  v.  Lovett,  1.S3 
Ga.  388,  18  Ann.  Cas.  114,  65  S.  E. 
853. 

New  Jersey. — Crane  r.  Gurnee,  75 
X.  J.  Eq.  104,  71  Atl.  338;  Koenig  r. 
Harned,  13  Atl.  236. 

New  York. — In  re  Haskin,  18  Hun 
43;  Re  Xiagara,  L.  &  O.  Power  Co., 
203  X.  Y.  493,  Ann.  Cas.  1913B  234, 
97  X.  E.  33,  38  L.R.A.(X.S.)  207; 
In  re  Edward  Xey  Co.,  114  App.  Div. 
467,  99  X.  Y.  S.  982. 

Rhode  Island. — Murray  r.  Lizotte, 
31  R.  L  509,  77  Atl.  231. 

Texas. — Trammell  v.  Shropshire,  22 
Tex.  327. 

Utah.— Snelson  v.  Pickard,  18  Itali 
436,  56  Pac.  89. 

9  In  re  Langslow,  167  X.  Y.  314,  (iO 
X.  E.  590,  modifying  52  Ai)p.  Div. 
635,   66    X.   Y.    S.    1135;    Emanuel    r. 


158] 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


615 


mary  way  to  compel  him  faithfully  to  execute  the  trust  reposed  in 
him;  ^°  nor  does  the  mere  fact  that  the  professional  relation  is  de- 
nied by  the  attorney,  deprive  the  court  of  jurisdiction  to  proceed 
summarily.^^  This  subject  has  also  been  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  the  treatment  of  dealings  between  attorney  and  client.^^ 


§  358.  Institution  of  Proceeding.  —  The  proceeding  is  a  spe- 
cial one,^^  addressed  to  the  judicial  discretion/*  and  it  is  for  the 
court  to  say  under  what  circumstances  it  will  be  entertained.^^ 
The  usual  practice  is  to  present  a  verified  ^^  petition  asking  for  a 
rule  to  show  cause  directed  to  the  attorney  and  commanding  him 
to  appear  at  a  certain  time  to  answer  the  charges  presented,"  the 
result  sought  being  an  adjudication.^^  In  some  jurisdictions,  how- 
ever, the  practice  is  regulated  by  statute,  and  the  local  laws  must 
be  consulted. ^^  Under  any  form  of  practice  the  original  petition 
must  contain  every  fact  essential  to  the  exercise  of  summary  ju- 


Cooper,  153  la.  572,  133  N.  W.  1064. 
And  see  note  to  Burns  c.  Allen,  2  Am. 
St.  Rep.  844. 

IC'  England. — Matter  of  Lord,  2 
Scott  131,  30  E.  C.  L.  430;  Matter  of 
Aitkin,  4  B.  &  Aid.  47,  6  E.  C.  L.  384; 
In  re  Carroll,  [1902]  2  Ch.  175;  In 
re  Grey,  [1892]  2  Q.  B.  440;  Ex  p. 
Hales,  [1907]  2  K.  B.  539.  See  also 
In  re  Hilliard,  9  Jur.  664,  2  Dowl. 
&  L.  919;  In  re  Fairthorne,  10  Jur. 
287. 

Alabama. — Boyett  v.  Payne,  141 
Ala.  475,  37  So.  585. 

New  York. — In  re  Husson,  26  Hun 
133;  Ex  p.  Statts,  4  Cow.  76;  In  re 
Dakin,  4  Hill  42 ;  Grant's  Case,  8  Abb. 
Pr.  357;  Matter  of  Edward  Ney  Co., 
114  App.  Div.  467,  99  N.  Y.  S.  982; 
In  re  Dey,  156  App.  Div.  864,  142  N. 
Y.  S.  62 ;  In  re  Hammann,  37 
Misc.  417,  75  N.  Y.  S.  775;  People 
v.  Feenaughty,  51  Misc.  468,  101  N.  Y. 
S.  700;  In  re  Mcintosh,  112  N.  Y.  S. 
513. 


11  State  V.  Morgan,  80  Iowa  413, 
45  X.  W.  1070. 

13  See  supra,  §§  153,  172. 

13  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  v.  So- 
derquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  N.  W.  433. 

1*  See  supra,  §   354  note. 

15  Keeney  v.  Tredwell,  71  App.  Div. 
521,  75  N.  Y.  S.  1097. 

16  In  re  Curtis,  51  App.  Div.  434, 
64  N.  Y.  S.  691. 

17  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  v. 
Soderquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  N.  W. 
433;  Merritt  v.  Lambert,  10  Paige 
(N.  Y.)  352;  Ptose  v.  Whiteman,  52 
Misc.  210,  101  N.  Y.  S.  1024;  Taylor 
V.  Armstead,  3  Call   (Va.)   200. 

18  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  r. 
Soderquist,  115  la.  695,  87  N.  W. 
433. 

19  See  Macdonald  v.  State,  143  Ala. 
101,  39  So.  257;  McCarley  r.  White, 
144  Ala.  662,  39  So.  978:  Heffren  v. 
Jayne,  39  Ind.  463,  13  Am.  Rep.  281; 
West  V.  Carleton,  8  La.  253. 


616 


EXrOKCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§  35S 


risdietion.^"  The  petition  may,  of  course,  be  amended  under  the 
usual  practice  rules.'^  The  proceeding  maj'  be  instituted  in  the 
court  of  which  the  attorney  is  an  officer,^  or  in  any  court  wherein 
his  misconduct  was  perpetrated ;  ^  but  a  state  court  will  not  pro- 


20  Alabama. — McCarley  V.  White, 
144  Ala.  062.  39  So.  978. 

Iowa. — Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc. 
v.  Soderquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  N.  W. 
433. 

yew  York. — Matter  of  Curtis,  51 
App.  Div.  434,  64  N.  Y.  S.  691; 
People  V.  Feenaughty,  51  Misc.  468, 
101  X.  Y.  S.  700;  Rose  v.  Whiteman, 
52  Misc.  210,  101  N.  Y.  S.  1024;  In 
re  Klein,  101  N.  Y.  S.  663. 

Texas.— Croft  v.  Hicks,  26  Tex. 
383. 

Money  Must  Have  Been  Wrongfully 
Withheld.— An  allegation  that  the  de- 
fendant received  money  sued  for  as 
an  attorney,  does  not  necessarily 
make  his  refusal  to  pay  it  over  wrong- 
ful; to  have  such  efl'ect  the  complaint 
should  contain  allegations  charging 
that  defendant  wrongfully  withholds 
the  money.  Gopen  v.  Crawford,  53 
How.   Pr.    (X.  Y.)    278. 

Xecessary  to  Charge  Dishonesty 
and  Oppressiveness. — -The  misconduct 
relied  on  as  grounds  for  summary 
proceedings  must  be  dishonest,  op- 
pressive, or  illegal.  Strong  r.  Mundy, 
.52  X.  J.  Eq.  833,  31  Atl.  Oil;  Tate  v. 
Field,  60  X.  J.  Eq.  42,  46  Atl.  952. 

What  Is  Dishonesty. — False,  ex- 
orijitant,  and  unreasonable  charges 
made  by  an  attorney  constitute  such 
<lishonest,  oppressive,  and  illegal  con- 
duct as  will  authorize  summary  pro- 
ceedings against  liira.  Tate  v.  Field, 
GO  X.  J.  Eq.  42,  40  Atl.  952. 

IMcMath  V.  Com.,  12  Ky.  L.  Rep. 
25 1 . 

2  In   re   Lord,  2  Scott   131,  30  E.  C. 


L.  430,  1  Hodges  195;  Pole  v.  Groves, 
4  Jur.  (Eng.)  339,  1  Scott  X.  R.  30; 
Thomas  v.  Roberts,  5  Dana  (Ky.) 
189. 

At  his  residence,  unless  proceeding 
out  of  which  default  arose  is  pending 
elsewhere.  Emanuel  v.  Cooper,  153 
la.  572,  133  X.  W.  1064. 

Where  only  one  member  of  a  firm 
has  been  admitted  hi  the  court,  and 
there  is  a  neglect  of  duty  on  the  part 
of  the  firm,  the  court  has  no  summary 
jurisdiction  except  as  to  the  member 
who  has  been  admitted.  Cheshire  v. 
Tyler,  7  Jur.    (Eng.)    704. 

Change  of  venue  is  not  available  in 
summary  proceedings  against  attor- 
neys. Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  v. 
Soderquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  X.  W. 
433. 

3  Thompson  r.  Gordon,  4  Dowl.  & 
L.  (Eng.)  49,  15  M.  &  W.  610,  15  L. 
J.  Exch.  344;  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav. 
Assoc,  r.  Soderquist,  115  la.  695,  87 
X.   W.  433. 

Where  alimony  decreed  by  a  court 
of  chancery  in  Xew  Jersey  is  col- 
lected by  legal  proceedings  in  Xew 
York  by  the  same  attorney  who  con- 
ducted the  alimony  proceedings,  such 
attorney  being  a  solicitor  in  chancery 
in  Xew  Jersey  and  also  an  attorney 
at  law  in  Xew  York,  the  Neu:  Jersey 
Court  of  Chancery  has  jurisdiction  of 
sununary  proceedings  to  coiii|H'1  liim 
to  account  to  his  client  for  the  money 
so  collected.  Lynde  v.  Lynde,  04  X.  J. 
Eq.  736,  52  Atl.  094,  97  Am.  St.  Rep. 
092,  58  L.R.A.  471. 


§§  ^o\),  300] 


EXFOKCKMEXT  OF  LIABILITY. 


617 


eeed  summarily  to  compel  an  attorney  to  pay  over  money  which  he 
collected  while  practicing  in  a  federal  conrt.*  The  petition  is  pre- 
sented as  an  independent  proceeding,^  and  the  pendency  of  any 
other  proceeding  is  not  essential.^  A  traverse  of  an  attorney's  an- 
swer to  a  money  rnle  may  be  filed  at  any  time  before  the  rule  is 
discharged.''' 

§  359.  Parties.  —  The  proceeding  must,  of  course,  be  brought 
on  behalf  of  the  client,^  or  his  agent,^  or  executor  or  administra- 
tor. ^°  But  where  an  attorney  collects  separate  claims  belonging 
to  different  persons,  they  cannot  unite  in  one  summary  proceed- 
ing against  him,^^  Where  a  judgment  recovered  for  a  client  by  a 
firm  of  attorneys  is  paid  to  one  of  the  partners,  who  appropriates 
the  proceeds  to  his  own  use,  it  is  not  necessary  to  join  the  other 
partners, 
so." 


though  it  is  permissible  and,  possibly,  advisable  to  do 


§  360.  Evidence.  — In  summary  proceedings  against  attorneys, 
the  evidence  on  the  hearing  must  be  such  as  is  admissible  in  civil 


4  Attorney  Practicing  in  the  Fed- 
eral Courts. — In  Thomas  v.  Roberts, 
5  Dana  (Ky.)  189,  it  was  said:  "We 
know  of  no  law  authorizing  such  a 
summary  proceeding  against  an  at- 
torney of  the  federal  court. 

We  sliould  not  presume  that  the 
state  legislature  intended  to  legis- 
late for  the  federal  court,  or  to 
provide  a  summary  remedy,  in  a 
state  court,  for  enforcing  the  respon- 
sibilities of  attorneys  who,  having 
collected  money  for  their  clients  in 
virtue  of  process  from  the  federal 
court,  are  amenable  to  that  tribunal 
for  their  professional  conduct  under 
its  authority."  And  see  to  the  same 
effect  :Matter  of  Forster,  49  Hun  144, 
1  N.  Y.  S.  619. 

5  Hess  V.  Joseph,  7  Robt.  (X.  Y.) 
600.  Compare  Grangier  v.  Hughes, 
.56  Super.  Ct.  349,  .3  N.  Y.  S.  828; 
Ex  p.  Ketchum,  4  Hill   (N.  Y.)  504. 


6  Emanuel  r.  Cooper,  153  la.  572, 
133  X.  W.   1064. 

7  Lane  v.  Brinson,  12  Ga.  App.  760, 
78  S.  E.  725. 

8  Colorado. — Ex  p.  Browne,  2  Colo. 
553. 

Illinois. — People  v.  Allison,  68  111. 
151. 

Kentucky. — Board  of  Education  v. 
Allin,  134  Ky.  763,  121   S.  W.  676. 

Mississippi. — Sloan  v.  Johnson,  14 
Smedes  &  M.  47. 

Neio  York. — Hess  v.  .Joseph,  7  Robt. 
009. 

9De  Woolfe  v.  ,  2  Chit.  08.   18 

E.  C.  L.  251. 

IC  Trammell  v.  Shropshire,  22  Tex. 
327. 

nin  re  Forster,  49  Hun  114,  1  N. 
Y.  S.  619. 

12  In  re  Wolf,  51  Hun  407.  4  N.  Y. 
S.  239. 

13  Nodine  v.  Ilannuni,  1  Alaska  302. 


618 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  LIABILITY. 


[§    ;^^1 


uc'tiuiis/*  Ex  parte  affidavits  are  inadmissible.^*  The  respoiident 
is  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  cross-examining  the  witnesses  pro- 
duced to  testify  against  liim.^^  As  the  judgment  may  conclude  the 
rights  of  the  attorney  without  the  ordinary  procedure  in  legal  con- 
troversies, it  is  essential  that  the  petitioner  should  establish  his 
cause  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  the  court.'''^  And  where  a  demand 
is  a  prerequisite  to  the  institution  of  a  proceeding  of  this  nature,,^' 
the  fact  that  such  demand  was  made  must  be  shown. -^^  It  is  com- 
petent for  a  petitioning  assignee  of  a  claim  to  show  that  his  as- 
sigTior  directed  the  attorney  to  turn  over  the  fund  to  the  petition- 
er.^" Under  the  ordinary  equity  practice  the  resi^ondent's  answer 
would  be  evidence  in  his  behalf  in  so  far  as  it  was  responsive  to 
the  petition ;  ^  where  this  practice  does  not  prevail,  however,  the 
answer  would  not  have  this  effect.^  The  attorney  may  be,  and 
doubtless  would  be,  permitted  to  show  such  mitigating  circum- 
stances as  would  have  a  tendency  to  exonerate  him  from  proceed- 
ings for  his  punishment,^  and  he  is  entitled  to  introduce  all  proper 
evidence  as  to  the  value  of  his  services  where  he  claims  therefor 
against  the  amount  withheld.* 

§  361.  Hearing. — The  hearing  of  summary  proceedings  rests 
entirely  with  the  coui't.*  Where  there  appears  to  be  any  good  rea- 
son therefor,  a  reference  may  be  ordered  merely  to  take  proof  and 
report  thereon;  ^  but  judgment  cannot  be  entered  on  such  report 


V. 

W. 


V. 

W. 


14  L'nion  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc 
Soderquist,  11.5  Iowa  695,  87  N. 
433. 

15  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc 
Soderquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  N. 
433. 

16  P(.irce  V.  Palmer,  31  R.  I.  432, 
Ann.  (as.  1912B  181,  77  Atl.  201. 

"Barker's  Case.  49  X.  II.  195; 
Peircp  r.  Palmer.  31  11.  1.  432,  Ann. 
Cas.   1912B   181,   77   Atl.  201. 

18  See  supra,  §  340. 

l9Macdonald  r.  State,  143  Ala.  101, 
39  So.  257. 

20  Hoyett  r.  Payne.  141  Ala.  475,  37 
So.  585.     But  ace  supra,  §  357. 


1  Foster  v.  Reid,  58  Ga.  221;  1 
Street's  Fed.  Eq.  Pr.  §§  716-718. 

2  State  V.  Morgan,  80  Iowa  413,  45 
N.  W.  1070. 

3  Dawson  v.  Compton,  7  Blackf. 
(Ind.)   421. 

4Boyett  V.  Payne,  141  Ala.  475,  37 
So.  585. 

6  In  re  Borkstrom,  63  App.  Div.  7. 
71  N.  Y.  S.  451,  affirmed  168  N.  Y. 
639,  01  N.  E.  1127;  Cartier  r. 
Spoonor,  118  App.  Div.  342,  103  N. 
Y.  S.  505;  Peirce  r.  Palmer,  31  R.  I. 
432,  Ann.  Cas.  1912B  181,  77  Atl. 
201. 

6  In    re     Knapj),    85     N.     Y.    285; 


2{j-2] 


E  X  l-'Ol;  C  K  N[  K  N  T  O  I''    1 . 1  A  1 ;  I  I .  IT  ^• . 


010 


until  it  has  been  confii-nuMl  by  the  rdurt.'  Neither  party  is  en- 
titled to  a  reference;  *  and  even  though  one  has  been  ordered,  tin; 
court  may  adopt  or  disregard  the  referee's  hndings,  and  render  an 
entirely  different  decision  on  the  facts.^  The  finding  of  the  court 
is  entitled  to  the  same  presuni])tion  that  prevails  as  to  the  verdict 
of  a  jury;  and  the  case  is  triable  on  review  on  errors  assigned,  and 
not  de  7iovo}'^ 

§  362.  Defenses.  —  The  fact  that  the  proceeding  is  a  summary 
one  does  not  deprive  the  attorney  of  any  defense  which  he  might 
have  asserted  in  an  action  at  law,  or  in  a  suit  in  equity,  instituted 
for  the  same  end."  Thus  he  may  set  up  that  the  money  retained 
by  him  was  honestly  due  as  compensation  for  his  services, ^^  or 


Matter  of  Wolf,  51  Hun  407,  4  N.  Y. 
S.  239;  Taylor  Iron  &  Steel  Co.  v. 
Higgins,  66  Hun  626  mem.,  20  N.  Y. 
S.  746,  appeal  distnissed  137  N.  Y.  605, 
33  N.  E.  744;  Matter  of  Raby,  29 
App.  Div.  225,  51  N".  Y.  S.  552 ;  In  re 
Ernst,  54  App.  Div.  363,  66  N.  Y.  S. 
620;  In  re  Martin,  73  App.  Div.  505, 
77  N.  Y.  S.  192;  Luikert  v.  Luikert, 
102  App.  Div.  53,  92  N.  Y.  S.  97; 
Gillespie  r.  Mulholland,  12  Misc.  40, 
33  X.  Y.  S.  33,  affirming  8  Misc.  511, 
28  X.  Y.  S.  754;  In  re  Hammann,  37 
Misc.  417,  75  N.  Y.  S.  775;  Rose  v. 
Whiteman,  52  Misc.  210,  101  N.  Y.  S. 
1024. 

heartier  v.  Spooner,  118  App.  Div. 
342,  103  N.  Y.  S.  505. 

The  court  cannot  delegate  any  of 
its  authority  to  the  committee  on 
complaints.  Its  report  is  of  assist- 
ance to  the  court  in  deciding  whether 
to  take  action  on  charges  or  to  leave 
complainants  to  their  remedies  at 
law,  but  its  report  can  never  be  used 
as  the  basis  of  an  order  against  an 
attorney.  A  summary  order  should 
be  made  only  after  the  parties  and 
witnesses    have    appeared    and    given 


their  sworn  testimony  before  the 
court.  Peirce  r.  Palmer,  31  R.  I.  432, 
Ann.  Cas.  1912B  18],  77  Atl.  201. 

8  Waterbury  r.  Eldridge,  52  Hun 
614  mem.,  5  N.  Y.  S.  324;  Ferdon  v. 
Ferdon,  1  App.  Div.  629  mem.,  36 
N.  Y.  S.  741 ;  In  re  Borkstrom,  6.'] 
App.  Div.  7,  71  N.  Y.  S.  451,  affirmed 
168  N.  Y.  639,  61  N.  E.  1127. 

9  Marshall  r.  Meech,  51  N.  Y.  140, 
10  Am.  Rep.  572;  Matter  of  Edward 
Ney  Co.,  114  App.  Div.  467,  99  N.  Y. 
S.  982;  Jones  &  Co.  v.  Gilbert,  117 
App.  Div.  775,  102  N.  Y.  S.  983; 
Cai'tier  v.  Spooner,  118  App.  Div.  342, 
103  N.  Y.  S.  505.  See  also  In  re 
Steinert,  24  Hun   (N.  Y.)    246. 

10  Union  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  r. 
Soderquist,  115  la.  695,  87  X.  \\.  433. 

11  White  r.  Ward,  157  Ala.  345,  47 
So.  166,  18  L.R.A.(X.S.)  568;  Dunn 
V.  Vannerson,  7  How.  (Miss.)  579: 
Matter  of  Fincke,  6  Daly  (X.  Y.) 
Ill;  Jones  r.  Miller,  1  Swan  (Tenn.) 
151. 

^'2  loica. — Emanuel  v.  Cooper,  153 
la.  572,  133  X.  W.  1064. 

Xeip  Jersey. — Strong  r.  ^Nlundy,  52 
X.  J.  Eq.  833,  31  Atl.  611. 


G2G 


EXl■ol^cE.ME^T  or  liability. 


[§   302 


that  the  fniicl  was  garnished  in  his  hands,^^  or  that  the  fnnd  has 
been  assigned  by  the  client/*  or  the  statute  of  limitations,"  or  that 
he  has  a  valid  set-off  thereagainst.^^  So,  also,  he  may  allege  an- 
other snit  pending  against  him  which  was  brought  b}^  the  moving 
party  in  the  summary  proceeding,  and  which  involves  the  same 
questions  as  are  involved  therein,^'''  or  that  a  judgment  has  been 
recovered  against  him  in  such  an  action ;  ^®  but  where  it  appears 


Xcir  York. — ^Matter  of  Forster,  49 
Hun  114.  I  X.  Y.  S.  619;  Matter  of 
Holland  Trust  Co.,  70  Hun  323,  27 
X.  Y.  S.  687;  McKibbin  v.  Xafis,  76 
Hun  344,  27  X.  Y.  S.  723;  In  re 
Sweeney,  86  App.  Div.  547,  83  X.  Y. 
S.  680;  Cartier  v.  Spooner,  118  App. 
Div.  342,  103  X.  Y.  S.  505;  In  re 
Klein,  101   X.  Y.  S.  663. 

Pennsylvania. — In  re  Harvey,  14 
Phila.  287,  38  Leg.  Int.  204. 

Rhode  Island. — Burns  v.  Allen,  15 
R.  I.  32,  23  Atl.  35,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
844. 

Tea^as.— Croft  v.  Hicks,  26  Tex.  383. 

Vermont. — Patrick  v.  Hazen,  10  Vt. 
183. 

iSEwing  /•.  Freeman,  103  Ga.  811, 
30  S.  E.  637.    And  see  supra,  §  301. 

HBowen  v.  Smidt,  66  Hun  627 
mem.,  20  X.  Y.  S.  735. 

15  Fortune  v.  English,  226  111.  262, 

9  Ann.  Cas.  77,  80  X.  E.  781,  117  Am. 
St.  Rep.  253,  12  L.R.A.(X.S.)  1005; 
People  V.  Brotherson,  36  Barb.  (X. 
Y.)  662;  Goodyear  Metallic  Rubber 
Co.  V.  Baker,  81  Vt.  39,  15  Ann.  Cas. 
1207,  69  Atl.  100,  17  L.R.A.(X.S.) 
667. 

As  to  wlicn  tlie  statute  begins  to 
run,  see  supra,  %%  342,  351. 

16  United    States. — In    re    Paschal, 

10  Wall.  483,  19  U.  S.   (L.  cd.)  992. 
Iowa. — Union  Bldg.   &   Sav.   Assoc. 

r.  Sodeniuist.  117  Iowa  695,  87  X.  W. 
433. 

New  York. —  Matter  of  Mertiara,  29 


Hun  459 ;  Taylor  Iron,  etc.,  Co.  v. 
Higgins,  66  Hun  626  mem.,  20  X.  Y. 
S.  746;  Matter  of  Holland  Trust  Co., 
76  Hun  323,  27  X.  Y.  S.  687;  McKib- 
bin V.  Xafis,  76  Hun  344,  27  X.  Y.  S. 
723;  In  re  Klein,  101  X.  Y.  S.  663. 

J'ennsylvania. — In  re  Kenned}',  120 
Pa.  St.  497,  14  Atl.  397,  6  Am.  St. 
Rep.  724;  In  re  Harvey,  14  Phila. 
287,  38  Leg.  Int.  204. 

Rhode  Island. — Burns  v.  Allen,  15 
R.  I.  32,  23  Atl.  35,  2  Am.  St.  Rep. 
844. 

Houtli  Carolina. — Hynman  v.  Wasli- 
ington,  2  McCord  L.  493. 

Contra  in  Alabama. — Macdonald  v. 
State,  143  Ala.  101,  39  So.  257. 

17  Dean  v.  Bigelow,  19  D.  C.  570, 
19  Wash.  L.  Rep.  225;  Cottrell  v. 
Finlayson,  4  How.  Pr.  (X.  Y".)  242. 
See  also  Com.  v.  McKay,  (Ky.)  20 
S.  W.  276 ;  Van  Tassel  v.  Van  Tassel, 
31  Barb.  (X\  Y.)  439;  People  v. 
Brotherson,  36  Barb.  (X.  Y.)  662; 
Bohanan  i\  Peterson,  9  Wend.  (X. 
Y.)    503. 

Compare  Coopwood  v.  Baldwin,  25 
Miss.  129,  wherein  it  was  said:  "We 
do  not  think  the  proceedings  on  the 
motion  against  plaintiff  in  error,  for 
money  collected  as  an  attorney,  are  a 
bar  to  a  recovery  in  an  action  on  the 
case  for  damages,  resulting  from  his 
unauthorized  and  illegal  action  in 
dismissing  the  suit." 

18  Union  Slaughterhouse,  etc.,  Co. 
V.  Crescent  City  Live  Stock  Landing, 


§  363] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIABILITY. 


021 


tliat  such  a  judgment  is  ineffectual,  that  is,  when  an  execution 
thereon  has  been  returned  unsatisfied,  it  has  been  held  that  a  sum- 
mary proceeding  may  be  maintained. ^^  The  fact  that  the  client 
has  a  legal  remedy  for  the  recovery  of  the  money  does  not  consti- 
tute a  defense,^"  nor  does  the  fact  that  he  has  given  the  client 
secured  notes  for  the  amount  due.^  Xeithcr  can  the  attorney  de- 
fend on  the  ground  that  he  has  been  disbarred  prior  to  the  insti- 
tution of  the  proceeding,^  or  that  he  has  voluntarily  resigned  his 
office  as  an  attorney.^ 


§  363.  Merit  and  Good  Faith  Must  Be  Shown  in  Defense. 
—  In  the  presentation  of  his  defense,  in  a  summary  proceeding, 
the  respondent  must  shovv^  not  only  that  it  is  meritorious,  but  also 


etc.,  Co.,  41  La.  Ann.  355,  6  So.  508; 
Ex  p.  \Ylute  Sewing  Macli.  Co.,  31  X. 
Bruns.  237. 

Compare  In  re  Grey  [1892]  2  Q.  B. 
(Eng.)  440;  Gabriel  v.  Scliillinger 
Fire  Proof  Cement  &  Asphalt  Co.,  24 
Misc.  313,  6  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  1,  52 
N.  Y.   S.  1127. 

19  In  re  Grey,  [1802]  2  Q.  B. 
(Eng.)  440,  wiieroin  it  was  said  that 
"the  true  way  of  dealing  with  this 
case  is  to  deal  with  it  according  to 
the  principle  which  was  laid  down  in 
Ee  Freston,  11  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.)  545, 
and  recognized  and  approved  of  in 
Re  Dudley,  12  Q.  B.  D.  (Eng.)  44. 
The  principle  so  laid  down  is  that 
the  court  has  a  punitive  and  disci- 
plinary jurisdiction  over  solicitors,  as 
being  officers  of  the  court,  which  is 
exercised,  not  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
forcing legal  rights,  but  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enforcing  honorable  conduct 
on  the  part  of  the  court's  own  officers. 
That  power  of  the  court  is  quite  dis- 
tinct from  any  legal  rights  or  rem- 
edies of  the  parties,  and  cannot, 
therefore,    be    affected    bv    anything 


which  affects  the  strict  legal  rights 
of  the  parties.  .  .  .  So,  if  a  so- 
licitor obtains  money  by  process  of 
law  for  his  client,  quite  irrespective 
of  any  legal  liability  which  may  be 
enforced  against  him  by  the  client, 
he  is  bound,  in  performance  of  his  duty 
as  a  solicitor,  to  hand  it  over  to  the 
client,  unless  he  has  a  valid  claim 
against  it.  If  he  spends  it,  or  if,  still 
having  it,  he  refuses  to  hand  it  over, 
he  commits  an  offense  as  an  officer 
of  the  court,  wliich  offense  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  any  legal  right  or 
remedy  of  the  client."  Quoted  with 
approval  in  Gabriel  v.  Scliillinger 
Fire  Proof,  etc.,  Co.,  24  Misc.  313, 
6  X.  Y.  Ann.  Cas.  1,  52  X.  Y.  S. 
1127. 

20 1'nion  Bldg.  &  Sav.  Assoc,  r. 
Soderquist,  115  Iowa  695,  87  X''.  \V. 
433. 

1  Bullock  V.  Angleman,  (X.  J.)  87 
Atl.  627. 

2  Matter  of  Burnham,  58  Misc.  576, 
109  X.  Y.  S.  988. 

3  Simes  v.  Gibbs,  2  Jur.  (Eng.)  418, 
0  Dowl.  310,  1  W.  W.  &  H.  40. 


622  EISTFORCEAfENT   OF  T.IAB1LTTY.  [§     3G4 

that  it  is  made  in  perfect  good  faith.*  In  this  connection  the  prin- 
ciples heretofore  discnssed  in  considering  dealings  between  attor- 
ney and  client  generally,  shonld  be  consulted.*  In  a  proceeding 
against  one  member  of  a  lirm  to  recover  moneys  paid  to  him  in 
satisfaction  of  a  judgment,  it  is  no  defense  that  the  other  member 
was  employed  by  the  client  and  secured  the  judgment.^  Xor  can 
an  attorney  successfully  defend  on  the  theory  that  his  retention 
of  the  fund  is  in  good  faith,  where  the  client  is  entitled  to  it.'^ 
Where  an  attorney  directs  the  payment  of  money  to  a  third  per- 
son, he  will  not  be  permitted  to  claim,  in  opposition  to  the  proceed- 
ing to  compel  him  to  pay  it  over,  that  he  did  not  receive  it,^  Nor 
can  an  attorney  discharge  himself  by  setting  up  a  contract  with  his 
client,  appropriating  the  claim  upon  w^hich  the  collection  was 
made,  to  an  indebtedness  to  him  which  would  otherwise  be  barred 
by  the  statute  of  limitations,  especially  where  the  other  party  to 
such  contract  is  dead.^  So,  where  a  claim  was  given  to  a  firm,  and 
part  thereof  was  collected  by  one  of  the  partners  after  the  firm 
had  been  dissolved,  he  cannot  set  up,  as  a  defense  to  rule  upon  him 
to  pay  it  over,  an  indebtedness  owing  to  him  by  the  other  partner.^" 
Nor  can  an  attorney  who  receives  money  for  his  client  defend  on 
the  theory  that  the  money  should  have  been  paid,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, to  some  one  else.^^ 

§  364.  The  Order  and  Its  Enforcement.  —  If  the  evidence  is 
insufficient,  the  usual  practice. is  to  enter  an  order  denying  the  mo- 
tion or,  in  some  instances,  dismissing  the  petition;  ^^  but  if,  after 

4  In  re  Bolles,  78  App.  Div.  180,  79  See   also   In   re   Wolf,   51   Hun  407,  4 

N.  Y.  S.  530.  N.  Y.  S.  239. 

6  See  supra,    §§    152-182.  "In  re  Silvernail,  45  Hun  575.   10 

6  In  re  Wolf,  51  Hun  407,  4  N.  Y.  S.  N.  Y.  St.  Rep.  588.  See  also  Steele 
239.  r.  Gunn,  49  Hun  610  mem.,  3  N.  Y.  S. 

7  In  re  Fincke,  6  Daly  (N.  Y.)   HI  ;  (592. 

Bowling  Green  Sav.  Bank  r.  Todd.  52  12  /n  New  York  an  order  denying  a 

N.  Y.  489;  In  re  Wolf,  51  Hun  407,  4  motion  to  compel  an  attorney  to  pay 

N.  Y.  S.  239;  In  re  Cliittenden,  25  N.  over  moneys  collected  by  him  for  the 

Y.    Wkly.    Dig.    403.  petitioners    sliould    provide    that    the 

8  Kent  V.  Rockwell.  89  Hun  88,  34  order  sliall  not  be  a  bar  to  any  action 
N.  Y.  S.  1041.  by  them   against  the   attorney   to   re- 

8  Foster  r.   Reid,  58  Ga.  221.  cover    the     money.      Sluinley     /■.     Mc- 

10  Jeffries    v.   Laurie,    23   Fed.   786.      Manus,  124  App.  Div.  935,  109  N.  Y. 


364] 


ENFORCEMENT   OF  LIABILITY. 


62;J 


liearing  the  proofs  presented,  the  court  is  convinced  that  the  at- 
torney should  turn  over  money  to  his  client,  or  do  or  perform  any 
other  act,  it  will  enter  an  order  to  that  effect."  An  order  will  not 
be  entered  on  a  referee's  report  nnless  the  evidence  and  the  find- 
ings reported  by  him  Avarrant  snch  action  ;  ^*  thus,  where  the  ob- 
ject of  the  proceeding  is  to  compel  an  attorney  to  turn  over  monev, 
it  must  appear  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  court  that  the  attorney 
received  the  money  for  his  client  while  acting  in  his  professional 
capacity ;  ^*  that  the  same  was  demanded  by  the  client  or  his  au- 
thorized representative,  when  such  preliminary  request  is  essen- 
tial,^^ and  that  the  attorney  unjustifiably  refused  to  comply  with 
such  demand."  The  order  usually  provides  for  the  payment,  with- 
in a  specified  time,  of  the  amount  due,"  with  interest  thereon;  " 
though  in  some  jurisdictions,  under  statutory  regulation,  a  pen- 
alty may  be  added.''"  The  order,  when  duly  entered  and  served, 
is  usually  enforced  by  procuring  an  order  to  show  cause  why  an 
attachment  shall  not  issue,  and,  on  the  return  thereof,  if  no  good 
cause  be  presented,  the  attachment  issues  as  a  matter  of  course ;  ^ 


S.  434,  modifr/ing  57  Misc.  8,  107  N. 
Y.  S.  913. 

Where  the  court,  in  entering  an 
order,  proceeds  on  an  erroneous  as- 
sumption of  fact,  as  shown  by  its 
opinion,  the  appellate  court  may  dis- 
miss the  proceedings  without  preju- 
dice. Matter  of  Pollock,  69  App.  Div. 
499,  74  N.  Y.  S.  976. 

13  People  V.  Feenaughty,  51  Misc. 
468,  101   N.  Y.  S.   700. 

14  McCarley  v.  White,  154  Ala.  295, 
45  So.  155;  Matter  of  Gardner,  56 
Misc.  272,  106  N.  Y.  S.  417. 

15  See  supra,  §  357. 

16  See  supra,  §  346. 

17  See  generally  supra,  §§   326-330. 

18  Langmade  v.  Glenn,  57  Ga.  525 ; 
In  re  Peterson,  74  Hun  93,  26  N.  Y. 
S.  405;  Croft  v.  Hicks,  26  Tex.  383. 

19  In  re  Wolf,  51  Hun  407,  4  N.  Y. 
S.  239. 

20 Hawkins   v.  Smith,   56   Ga.  571; 


Dawson  v.  Compton,  7  Blackf.  (Ind.) 
421;  Sloan  r.  Johnson,  14  Smedes  & 
M.  (Miss.)  47;  Taylor  v.  Armstcad, 
3  Call    (Va.)   200.       . 

1  Smith  V.  Bush,  58  Ga.  121: 
People  V.  Brotherson,  36  Barb.  (N. 
Y.)  662;  People  v.  Smith,  3  Caines 
(N.  Y.)  221,  Col.  &  C.  Cas.  497; 
People  V.  Wilson,  5  Johns.  (X.  Y.) 
368;  Denton  r.  Noyes,  6  Johns.  (N. 
Y.)  298,  5  Am.  Dec.  237;  Bohanan  v. 
Peterson,  9  Wend.  (N.  Y.)  503;  Bowl- 
ing Green  Sav.  Bank  r.  Todd,  52 
X.  Y.  489.  See  also  Cottrell  v.  Fin- 
layson.  4  Hoav.  Pr.  (X.  Y.)  242.  2 
Code  Rep.  116. 

Laches. — An  attachment  was  re- 
fused in  jiroceedings  instituted 
against  an  attorney  for  money  col- 
lected and  not  paid  over  by  him.  when 
six  years  had  elapsed  since  the  de- 
mand for  sucli  money.  People  v. 
Brotherson,  36  Barb.   (X.  Y.)   662. 


G24 


ENFORCEMENT   OF   LIABILITY. 


[§  JJ64 


but  it  must  appear  that  the  mouey  has  been  demanded  before  the 
order  to  show  cause  will  be  allowed.^  The  order  may  also  be  en- 
forced by  contempt  proceedings ;  ^  and  imprisonment  under  such 
proceedings  is  not  an  imprisonment  for  debt.'*  So,  also,  the  order 
may  be  enforced  by  removal  from  office.®  A  New  York  statute 
provides  that  a  court  of  record  has  power  to  punish,  by  fine  and 
imprisonment,  or  either,  an  attorney  for  a  misbehavior  in  his  of- 
fice or  trust,  or  for  a  wilful  neglect  or  violation  of  duty  therein; 
or  for  disobedience  to  a  lawful  mandate  of  the  court,  or  of  a  judge 
thereof,  or  of  an  officer  authorized  to  perform  the  duties  of  such 
a  judge.^ 


2  Ex  p.  Ferguson,  6  Cow.  (N.  Y.) 
596;  Cottrell  v.  Finlayson,  4  How. 
Pr.   (N.  Y.)   242,  2  Code  Rep.  116. 

3  Smith   V.  McLendon,  59   Ga.  523 
People  r.  Nevins,  1  Hill   (N.  Y.)   154 
In  re  Blcakley,  5  Paige   (N.  Y.)   311 
Steele  v.  Gunn,  49  Hun  610  mem.,  3 
X.  Y.  S.  692;   Matter  of  McBride,  6 
App.  Div.  376,  39  N.  Y.  S.  579;  Car- 
tier    V.    Spooner.   118   App.  Div.   342, 
103  N.  Y.  S.  505. 


4  Smith  r.  McLendon,  59  Ga.  523. 

5  .Jeffries  v.  Laurie,  23  Fed.  780,  27 
Fed.  195;  In  re  Bleakley,  5  Paige  (N. 
Y.)   311.     And  see  infra,  §  804  et  seq. 

6  §  753  N.  Y.  Judiciary  Law.  See 
also  People  r.  Feenaughty,  51  Misc. 
468,  101  X.  Y.  S.  700;  Matter  of 
Gardner,  56  Misc.  272,  106  N.  Y.  S. 
417. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  851  168    5 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


OCT  SO  1975 


4    197? 


Form  L9-Series4939 


